/>iBeing a keen club golfer (although not one with any actual skill), a case that caught my eye in the last few weeks was the case of Rohilla v The Members of Royal Mid Surrey Golf Course (whose members listed in the Judgment included the perfectly named Michael Hole). As well as being a very detailed insight into the workings of an exclusive Surrey golf club, the case provides a few useful lessons on how, and more importantly how not to, remove someone from a membership who (allegedly) broke the rules and/or was quite unpopular.
The Allegation of Cheating
The Royal Mid Surrey Golf Club is a deeply traditional golf club, formed at the close of the Victorian era and granted the distinction of Royal by George V. Ms Rohilla had been a member of the club since 2003 and was described by the Judge as “not a popular member”. The judgment reports that the captains kept a file on her, she was overly competitive, engaged in gamesmanship and there were rumours that she kept her handicap at a deliberately inflated level (3 of the 7 deadly sins of golf club membership).
Golf is a sport that, perhaps more than any other, is based around a detailed set of rules. On top of that there is a code of conduct and rules of etiquette that anyone playing the sport is expected to adhere to. It is perhaps the only sport where every serious participant has a handicap (a number of shots they are given) based on their ability, which allows them to compete with better and worse players on a supposedly level footing. Golf therefore requires a large degree of honesty and self-policing to ensure fairness. Rule breaches are generally taken extremely seriously (particularly at the better known clubs) and professionals who are deemed to regularly break rules are routinely vilified (those that know, yes I’m looking at you…).
On 12 September 2019, Ms Rohilla played in a club competition called the Harare 125 Bowl which was open to the whole of the 1,400 strong membership. Her playing partners on the day were 2 other female members and Ms Rohilla’s scorecard was marked by a member who was described by the Judge as having a reputation for “not being the most accurate of markers”. After a dazzlingly average round of golf, the ladies reviewed their scorecards prior to submission, to be included in the tournament. It turned out there were numerous mistakes on Ms Rohilla’s card who in any event was a long way off winning any of the prizes in the tournament.
The ladies eventually agreed and signed off Ms Rohilla’s scorecard. However, prior to submitting the card it is common ground that two further alterations were made by someone to make the score two better than it had been when it was agreed by the players. The head of the Pro Shop (somehow) immediately spotted the discrepancy and told Ms Rohilla that the incident was extremely serious. She was disqualified from the tournament and told to expect to hear further from the management in due course.
It is almost certainly fair to say that if this was the first incident on Ms Rohilla’s roster, the matter probably would not have been taken any further. However, it is clear that Ms Rohilla was already under scrutiny and this was seen as a final straw. What followed was an investigation and process, but not one that was necessarily appropriate or lawful. Statements were taken from the playing partners and the offending scorecard was very closely examined. Ms Rohilla attended a meeting of the management committee on 25 September and put forward her version of events. However, the management committee met again on 30 September and voted unanimously that Ms Rohilla had cheated and would be expelled from the club.
The Injunction Hearing
Ms Rohilla thought that she had not been given a fair hearing and rather than start afresh at a different golf club or put her skillset to better use by applying for the next series of The Traitors, she embarked upon a long legal battle to seek an injunction against the club to reinstate her membership. Some five and a half years later, the matter was heard over 3 days at Central London County Court, with his Honour Judge Holmes taking it upon himself to, as asked by the parties, play detective and deliver an engaging 72-page Judgment.
Despite expressly stating that the Court was not deciding whether or not Ms Rohilla had cheated, the Judgment examined the facts (particularly the offending scorecard) in minute detail for 48 pages before seemingly reaching the conclusion that she probably had cheated. However, the Judgment found that the matter actually turned on natural justice and good faith – had Ms Rohilla been afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard and was the decision free from bias?
Ultimately the Judge found that the management committee had not considered Ms Rohilla’s version of events and that effectively their decision (to expel her) was predetermined. It was also based upon members’ personal dislike of her more so than this particular incident and there was a clear bias against her. There had been a breach of natural justice and the club had acted in bad faith in various aspects.
In light of the breaches of duty in the process undertaken by the management committee to expel Ms Rohilla, the Judge awarded nominal damages in the sum of £1,000 for her inconvenience and injury to feelings and granted the injunction to reinstate her to the club. How she will be received on returning having gone through this process and after the passage of five and a half years is an intriguing question.
Lessons Learnt
Whilst I would not necessarily direct you to read the whole Judgment (which can be found here), it does provide a useful reminder that even if an institution has the power to remove someone from their position (in this case as a member of a golf club), it cannot act as judge and jury without complying with the principles of natural justice and acting fairly in a procedural sense and in good faith. It appears that the club in this instance saw the clear rule breach by Ms Rohilla as the ideal opportunity to remove an unpopular member, but it allowed this bias to override appropriate procedures and failed to consider Ms Rohilla’s side of the story.
The principles of natural justice and procedural fairness are well known. As per McInnes v Onslow Fane [1978] 1 WLR 1520 the extent of the application of the principles varies in the light of all the circumstances and, in particular, whether the case can be described as an “application” case, an “expectation” case or, as here, a “forfeiture” case, i.e. where a subsisting right was to be taken away. The Judge found that, in relation to the application of the principles in this forfeiture case: “First, what will be required is context specific. That includes the size and resources of the organisation. Secondly, what amounts to natural justice changes with the passage of time. Thirdly, it will often require that a person who may be adversely affected by the decision will have an opportunity to make representations on her own behalf before the decision is taken. Fourthly, the person must know what factors may weigh against her interest, such that she must know the gist of the case she has to answer. Whilst the contents of natural justice change with time, that is really a word of caution against taking every word and circumstance from the earlier cases as being the applicable modern standard for all purposes. Haque was a recent case on these points and I gratefully adopt the analysis and standard identified by Choudhury, J. in that case”
In Haque v. Faradhi [2023] EWHC 1135 (KB) Choudhury, J held that the power to terminate: “(i) Must be exercised in good faith and not for any improper purpose; (ii) Must not be exercised capriciously, arbitrarily or irrationally; (iii) Must be exercised with regard to the rules of natural justice, including: a) giving notice of the gist of any allegations against a member b) giving that member a fair opportunity to respond to them; c) the right to an unbiased decision maker; d) the right to a brief explanation as to the reason for termination.”
The judgement reads therefore as a cautionary tale. Any institution, sporting or otherwise, where executive powers are granted to management or to a committee to take away a right granted to a member must ensure that they have strict procedures in place to ensure that members receive a fair hearing even in relation to the most egregious of rule breaches or misconduct. Otherwise, perhaps sooner than five years later, they may find themselves welcoming the unwanted member back into the clubhouse, one assumes through gritted teeth.
