A prestigious royal golf club is now facing a legal bill of approximately £300,000 after being sued by a former member who was expelled over cheating allegations.
Rina Rohilla lost her membership at the Royal Mid-Surrey Golf Club—where King Edward VIII once served as club captain—after being accused of falsifying her scores.
She was alleged to have erased penciled-in numbers on her scorecard following a competition in September 2019, altering it to improve her results.
However, she took legal action, arguing that her expulsion was unjust and motivated by personal dislike from a select group of club members, particularly ladies’ vice-captain Beverley Mayes.
Ms. Rohilla claimed the disciplinary process was biased due to hostility from some members, with one individual previously commenting that “her traits, mannerisms, and conduct are not what we would expect from a member.”
After a trial at Central London County Court, Judge Andrew Holmes found there was “clear bias” against her and a deliberate effort by certain members to have her removed, rendering the disciplinary proceedings fundamentally unfair.
He ordered her reinstatement, and following a subsequent court hearing, the club now faces legal costs exceeding £300,000.
During the February trial, the court heard that Ms. Rohilla, an insolvency practitioner, had been a devoted golfer since joining the club in 2003.
Her expulsion stemmed from the Harare 125 Bowl competition in September 2019, where she played alongside two other female golfers.
Her opponent, Eva Haupt, had marked her score, and when Ms. Rohilla later logged her scores into the clubhouse computer, she used the figures from Haupt’s card—which contained errors.
Instead of sixes on the third and sixth holes, the scores had been altered to fives.
After inputting the fives, Ms. Rohilla was immediately confronted and accused of making the changes herself.
Despite her firm denial of any wrongdoing, the case was escalated to the Captain’s Committee and later the General Management Committee (GMC), which ultimately revoked her membership.
The club concluded that she had manipulated the scorecard before entering the data into the system.
However, her barrister, Mr. Crow, argued in court that some members had “smelled blood” and prematurely assumed her guilt, orchestrating a “stitch-up” to remove an unpopular member.
He contended that the decision-making process was deeply flawed and that Ms. Rohilla was denied a fair chance to defend herself, as she had not been given proper notice of the case against her.
In his ruling, Judge Holmes determined that her expulsion constituted a “breach of natural justice” and a “breach of contract.”
He noted that Ms. Rohilla had not been provided with the full conclusions of the Captains’ Committee before facing the club’s management committee.
These conclusions included at least two pieces of evidence that worked against her, yet she was not given an opportunity to respond to them, the judge said.
He continued: ‘In addition, the breach of natural justice is founded upon the obvious bias shown against Ms Rohilla by those responsible for investigating the allegation and some of those who took the decision.
‘There was a clear desire to secure Ms Rohilla’s expulsion from the club because of the dislike for her felt by those involved.
‘This was evidenced in the various emails and the failure to consider the arguments that she was seeking to advance in response. The process adopted was the antithesis of fair.
‘At a very early stage, minds were made up and, at least for some, the aim was to secure the expulsion of an unpopular member.’
The judge ruled that Ms. Rohilla should be reinstated as a member and awarded £1,000 in damages, along with £1,600 to cover lost membership fees.
This week, Judge Holmes returned to court to determine who should bear the legal costs of the lengthy dispute. The club argued that Ms. Rohilla was responsible for the trial since it had previously offered to reinstate her.
However, the judge declared Ms. Rohilla the clear winner of the case, though the amount the club must reimburse her for legal fees would be reduced since she had not succeeded on every issue.
Initially, Ms. Rohilla had alleged that some of the hostility toward her stemmed from unconscious racial bias, but this claim was dropped before the trial concluded.
Judge Holmes stated that there was no evidence presented during the trial to suggest that any club member was motivated by her race.
He added: ‘The appropriate order is that the defendant pay 75% of the claimant’s costs of the action.
‘That is, in my view, a reasonable and fair proportion of the costs.’
As a result of the ruling, Ms. Rohilla will receive 75% of her legal costs once assessed, with an initial payment of approximately £100,000.
Court orders revealed that the club had budgeted over £200,000 for its own legal expenses, bringing its total costs for the case to more than £300,000.
