Royal club forced to let ‘cheating' golfer back on fairway
A royal golf club that kicked out a member accused of cheating has been forced to let her back on the fairway.
Rina Rohilla had her membership at the Royal Mid-Surrey Golf Club, where King Edward VIII was once captain, terminated after being accused of fiddling her scores in September 2019.
She sued, claiming she was unfairly booted out because she was unpopular with some members of a 'core clique' at the club.
Ms Rohilla said 'chief amongst them' was the vice-captain Beverley Mayes, with complaints made in an email about her 'gamesmanship, the terrible way in which she treats her opponents' and comments that 'her traits/mannerisms/conduct are certainly not as we would want from a member'.
She has now won her legal fight to force the club to take her back after a judge ruled in her favour.
Giving judgment, Judge Andrew Holmes said there was a 'clear dislike' for Ms Rohilla among some at the club.
'Clear desire' to evict golfer
He said some 'minds were made up' about her guilt soon after she was accused and that there had been 'clear bias' against her, with a 'clear desire to secure her expulsion.'
'I found Ms Rohilla to be an honest witness and I found no basis upon which I could have concluded that she was lying to me when she denied that she had changed the scores.'
Central London County Court heard Ms Rohilla, an insolvency practitioner, had joined the club in 2003 and was devoted to golf.
But her expulsion from the club stemmed from her participation in the Harare 125 Bowl competition in September 2019, during which she played a round with two golfers.
Her score was marked by opponent Eva Haupt and when, after the round, she went to log her score in the computer in the clubhouse, she did so using the scores on Ms Haupt's card, which turned out to be wrong.
Instead of sixes on holes three and six, the scores had been rubbed out and replaced with fives.
Ms Rohilla recorded the fives and was immediately challenged and accused of making the alteration herself.
She denied cheating, but the matter was passed on to the club's Captain's Committee and subsequently the General Management Committee (GMC), which terminated her membership.
After an investigation, the club found that she had cheated by altering the scores on the scorecard, which she then entered into the computer.
But in court, Mr Crow argued that some club members had 'smelled blood' after the allegation and assumed her guilt.
He claimed the decision-making process was 'fundamentally flawed' and that Ms Rohilla was not provided a 'fair opportunity' to defend herself as she was not given adequate notice of the case against her.
Ruling in her favour after last month's trial, Judge Holmes said the decision to kick her out was a 'breach of natural justice' and 'breach of contract.'
However, he said there was 'no evidence to support any suggestion that anyone in the club was motivated in any way by Ms Rohilla's race.'
The judge ordered that she be reinstated as a member and awarded £1,000 compensation for 'injury to feelings.'
The club began in 1892 and gained Royal status by command of King George V in 1926. It was transformed by five times Open Champion John Henry Taylor into two 18-hole courses across 296 acres of land next to Kew Gardens.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
3 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Alt therapist wins fight to stop sister and support dogs taking mum's £420k home
Sharon Duggan and her two sisters were left their mum's home after her death in 2018, but she wanted to not sell and stay in the 420k house with her emotional support dogs A woman who sued her sisters in a bid to keep their dead mum's £420,000 home where she wanted to stay with her emotional support dogs, has lost her legal battle. Sharon Duggan who said she is "hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive" wanted to keep the home in Southgate, Crawley after the death of her 78-year-old mum Agnes who died in 2018. The mum had left her house to her three daughters - former NHS worker Sharon, 49, alternative therapist Brenda, 55 and oldest sister Ann, 60. Sharon - who told a judge she "is dyslexic and suffers from a variety of health issues, including chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and Adjustment Disorder and also has long Covid" - claimed she needed the house for herself and her therapeutic rescue dogs, saying she is too sensitive for life in a flat. She sued her two sisters under the 1975 Inheritance Act, claiming "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money, claiming her special sensitivity and medical ailments mean she should get at least a life interest in the property. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda fought the case and has now won, after Judge Alan Johns threw out Sharon's claim at Central London County Court. The judge accepted that Sharon has 'particular issues,' but ultimately ruled that a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. The court heard that most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out. She insisted that her needs outweighed her sisters' right to get the inheritance they are due, also arguing that it would be hard to find alternative accommodation for both her and her two therapeutic dogs, which 'help with her mental and emotional well-being'. Sharon claimed she 'sacrificed' her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014, also arguing that her mum was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her. As well as helping her mother out with her daily needs, she claimed to have spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady. In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that 'psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again'. 'She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep. She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult. "The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively." In the witness box she insisted that downsizing to a flat would be too much for her, telling the court: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive. A flat would not be suitable due to the noise levels. I would be better off living in a car, I couldn't cope with it.' Sharon wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest, or alternatively an order allowing her to buy her mum's old property for a small sum to be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda, who formerly ran a bioresonance therapy company and a business providing gluten-free altar bread to food-intolerant Catholics, defended the claim, insisting Sharon and her pets will be fine in a flat. Ruling against Sharon, Judge Johns said: 'It's my judgment that there has been no failure to make reasonable financial provision for her. 'I am not satisfied there was any promise that the property would be Sharon's - and certainly not a promise that Sharon was confident would be carried out.' He said Sharon had moved into her mum's house while in an 'excellent' financial position, although her finances are now badly depleted. She also lived with Agnes rent free and, although she had spent time caring for her mum while in declining health, the court's role wasn't simply to 'reward meritorious conduct'. 'Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate," he said. 'I don't rule out flats as suitable accommodation,' he added, also noting that Sharon should be able to work once the court case is behind her. 'As to her ability to work I don't accept that she is unable to work at all - or at least she will be after this litigation is dealt with,' he told the court, adding that Sharon herself had accepted in court that she hopes eventually to work again. He also rejected her claim that Brenda was estranged from their mum towards the end of her life. 'Brenda told me that she tried to see her mother and call her, but that that wasn't permitted by Sharon," he said. "That evidence included that her telephone calls were blocked and I accept all that evidence.' 'This is a modest estate and Agnes had two other daughters to think of." The decision means the three sisters are each due a third of their mum's estate, although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial.
Scottish Sun
3 days ago
- Scottish Sun
‘Noise sensitive' woman loses battle with sisters to keep mum's £420k home for her 'emotional support' dogs
Alternative therapist claimed house for herself following mum's death WILL ROW 'Noise sensitive' woman loses battle with sisters to keep mum's £420k home for her 'emotional support' dogs Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A WOMAN has lost a court fight with her sisters to keep their mum's £420,000 home for her "emotional support" dogs. Sharon Duggan claimed the home in Crawley, West Sussex, for herself after mum Agnes passed away in 2018. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 4 Sharon Duggan lost a battle for her mum's house Credit: Champion News Service 4 She claimed she needed the home for her therapy dogs Credit: Champion News Service The "hyper-vigilant and sound sensitive" alternative therapist said she needed the house for her therapeutic rescue dogs. Sharon took her sisters to court after they tried to claim their share in the home, which was left to all three daughters. Sibling Brenda, who was supported by third sister Ann, fought the case and won after a judge threw out Sharon's claim. Sharon had used the 1975 Inheritance Act to argue she deserved "reasonable provision" above her one-third share of her mum's money. She claimed her special sensitivity and medical ailments, which include dyslexia, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, Adjustment Disorder and long Covid, meant she should get at least a life interest in the property. But while the judge accepted that Sharon has "particular issues," he concluded a flat could not be ruled out as "suitable" accommodation for her. Central London County Court heard most of Agnes' estate was tied up in her house, where Sharon had lived and cared for her during her final dementia-stricken years. After Agnes died, the three sisters ended up in court when Sharon refused to move out - citing her acute physical and emotional needs and the plight of her two rescue dogs. She insisted her problems far outweighed those of her sisters and argued she had "sacrificed" her career to move in and help out her mum in 2014. Sharon also claimed Agnes was planning to change her will to ensure the house was left to her. She told the court she spent £30,000 of her own money on funding Agnes' hefty vet bills for her beloved Jack Russell/Chihuahua cross, Lady. In her written arguments to the court, Sharon insisted that "psychologically she could not cope with living in a flat again". Her barrister said: "She is anxious that neighbours may cause disturbances and impact upon her ability to sleep. "She now has two rescue dogs, which help with her mental and emotional well-being, but which makes finding suitable alternative accommodation difficult. "The claimant maintains that moving from the property would affect her mental health greatly and that having to move into rented or temporary accommodation would further affect her health negatively." Sharon said she wanted the house transferred to her outright or the right to a life interest. She also alternatively suggest an order allowing her to buy her mum's old property for a small sum, which would be raised with a mortgage. But Brenda insisted that Sharon and her pets would be fine in a flat. Judge Alan Johns said he was "satisfied" there was no promise that the house would go to Sharon alone. He added: "Given the circumstances in which Sharon occupied the property with Agnes, there's no moral claim strong enough to deprive her sisters of their share of this modest estate." The ruling means the sisters are each due a third of their mum's estate - although Sharon's share could be wiped out by the court bills for the trial. 4 Brenda insisted her sister would be fine in a flat Credit: Champion News Service
Telegraph
26-03-2025
- Telegraph
Royal club forced to let ‘cheating' golfer back on fairway
A royal golf club that kicked out a member accused of cheating has been forced to let her back on the fairway. Rina Rohilla had her membership at the Royal Mid-Surrey Golf Club, where King Edward VIII was once captain, terminated after being accused of fiddling her scores in September 2019. She sued, claiming she was unfairly booted out because she was unpopular with some members of a 'core clique' at the club. Ms Rohilla said 'chief amongst them' was the vice-captain Beverley Mayes, with complaints made in an email about her 'gamesmanship, the terrible way in which she treats her opponents' and comments that 'her traits/mannerisms/conduct are certainly not as we would want from a member'. She has now won her legal fight to force the club to take her back after a judge ruled in her favour. Giving judgment, Judge Andrew Holmes said there was a 'clear dislike' for Ms Rohilla among some at the club. 'Clear desire' to evict golfer He said some 'minds were made up' about her guilt soon after she was accused and that there had been 'clear bias' against her, with a 'clear desire to secure her expulsion.' 'I found Ms Rohilla to be an honest witness and I found no basis upon which I could have concluded that she was lying to me when she denied that she had changed the scores.' Central London County Court heard Ms Rohilla, an insolvency practitioner, had joined the club in 2003 and was devoted to golf. But her expulsion from the club stemmed from her participation in the Harare 125 Bowl competition in September 2019, during which she played a round with two golfers. Her score was marked by opponent Eva Haupt and when, after the round, she went to log her score in the computer in the clubhouse, she did so using the scores on Ms Haupt's card, which turned out to be wrong. Instead of sixes on holes three and six, the scores had been rubbed out and replaced with fives. Ms Rohilla recorded the fives and was immediately challenged and accused of making the alteration herself. She denied cheating, but the matter was passed on to the club's Captain's Committee and subsequently the General Management Committee (GMC), which terminated her membership. After an investigation, the club found that she had cheated by altering the scores on the scorecard, which she then entered into the computer. But in court, Mr Crow argued that some club members had 'smelled blood' after the allegation and assumed her guilt. He claimed the decision-making process was 'fundamentally flawed' and that Ms Rohilla was not provided a 'fair opportunity' to defend herself as she was not given adequate notice of the case against her. Ruling in her favour after last month's trial, Judge Holmes said the decision to kick her out was a 'breach of natural justice' and 'breach of contract.' However, he said there was 'no evidence to support any suggestion that anyone in the club was motivated in any way by Ms Rohilla's race.' The judge ordered that she be reinstated as a member and awarded £1,000 compensation for 'injury to feelings.' The club began in 1892 and gained Royal status by command of King George V in 1926. It was transformed by five times Open Champion John Henry Taylor into two 18-hole courses across 296 acres of land next to Kew Gardens.
