When a private golf club’s failure to follow a proper disciplinary process ends up in an embarrassing and expensive Court case
Royal Mid-Surrey Golf Club was granted its royal charter by King George V. The future King Edward VII was Captain of the Club when Prince of Wales. Unfortunately for the Club, none of this illustrious history could protect it when a member, Ms Rina Rohilla, successfully challenged her expulsion from the Club in the recent English County Court decision of Rohilla v Holt (21 March 2025).
The case provides important guidance on how procedural missteps—no matter the alleged conduct—can render disciplinary decisions unlawful.
The facts
It seems that Ms Rohilla was disliked by certain members of the Club, including Ms Mayes, the Ladies Vice-Captain. The Captains’ Committee, which handled golfing matters, kept a file on Ms Rohilla. Ultimately this negative predisposition towards Ms Rohilla permeated the dispute and legal case which ensued following the playing of the Club’s Harare 125 Bowl on Thursday 12 September 2019.
Ms Rohilla and her playing partners took some time checking their back nine stableford scores, however after Ms Rohilla submitted her card with the Assistant Professional (Mr Rodgers) a dispute developed that her gross scores of 6 on the third and sixth holes had been changed on the scorecard to gross scores of 5. Ms Rohilla denied that she had changed these scores and that she had deliberately tried to achieve a higher stableford points score than her actual score.
From that moment a down of hares was sent running on an unwieldy disciplinary process which involved the Club’s Professional Staff, the General Manager, the Captains’ Committee, the Ladies’ Committee and the General Management Committee (GMC) and ultimately led to a GMC decision to expel Ms Rohilla from the Club.
Ms Rohilla brought a claim in the County Court against the members of the GMC, arguing that the process by which she was expelled was procedurally unfair and in breach of natural justice.
The decision
The judge ruled in favour of Ms Rohilla and reinstated her membership. He also awarded her damages of £1,000 for her distress and inconvenience and she is likely to be awarded the significant legal costs of the case.
The judge found that although clubs have discretion to regulate their membership under the Club rules, this power is constrained by the requirement to act in good faith and follow the rules of natural justice, which require the gist of the case against a member to be made clear to them, an opportunity for the member to be heard properly and a decision maker (GMC) that is free from bias and pre-judgement of the allegations.
In this case the Club ran foul of the rules of natural justice in a variety of ways:
The Club withheld key and prejudicial evidence, including email correspondence and witness accounts, from Ms Rohilla and without offering her the opportunity to respond to those allegations.
Ms Rohilla was prohibited from communicating with key individuals involved in the allegations.
The Captains’ Committee made adverse findings against Ms Rohilla but its report provided to the GMC was never shared with Ms Rohilla even though it contained vital evidence which influenced the GMC’s decision.
Ms Rohilla was not given a fair opportunity to respond to all of the allegations or cross-examine those who made them. The GMC did not discuss or consider the points raised by Ms Rohilla in a document presented by her at the GMC meeting.
The member who marked her card, Ms Haupt, was present at the GMC meeting when the case against Ms Rohilla was presented before she arrived. Ms Rohilla was not given the opportunity to cross examine Ms Haupt about her evidence which had changed.
There were evidence that the GMC had formed an adverse view well before the hearing, undermining its impartiality and showing bias against Ms Rohilla.
Ms Mayes, the Ladies Vice-Captain, viewed the incident as an opportunity to “get rid” of a difficult member. She circulated information from another club to a GMC member in an attempt to influence the outcome of the vote. She also edited part of Mr Rodgers’ statement to delete the part of it which did not look good for the Club’s case. The judge found that she acted in bad faith and this was sufficient to establish a breach of contract on behalf of the Club.
The judge was not satisfied that Ms Rohilla had cheated and found her to be an honest witness. The process against her was flawed and had it complied with the principles of natural justice and good faith then the GMC may have concluded either that she did not cheat or that the allegation was not proved.
Take aways from this case
There a number of learnings from this case for golf and other member clubs:
It is preferable that a club has a separate Disciplinary Committee which is quarantined from the other Committees.
The Club and its Disciplinary Committee need a clear and independent process as to how a disciplinary matter will be dealt with, including the collecting of evidence, the charges and the hearing of those charges.
That process and the club rules must comply with the principles of natural justice.
The member must be given notice of the case against them and provided with all relevant documents which are relevant to that case against them.
The member cannot be impeded from legitimately speaking to witnesses about their case.
If the allegations are serious (e.g. cheating) and disputed, then the member will be entitled to question or cross examine the witnesses.
The Committee cannot approach the matter with a bias against the member based on extraneous incidents and accusations.
The Committee and anyone involved should exercise great care with emails, texts and other notes, as discovery of these in a subsequent court case can be very damaging, as occurred in this case.
This case is not isolated. A few years ago I posted a case note about a similar type of case and decision which found against Sunningdale Golf Club, another very prestigious private golf club in Berkshire, England.