Businesswoman expelled from £1,235-a-year Mayfair private members club for turning up with Covid symptoms faces £600,000 court bill after losing reinstatement bid
A glamorous businesswoman who claimed she was 'belittled and bullied' after she was expelled from her £1,235-a-year Mayfair private members club for breaching Covid rules faces a £600,000-plus court bill after losing her fight for reinstatement.
Gina Mok was removed as a member of the prestigious Lansdowne Club, in Mayfair, in November 2021 after twice turning up with Covid-like symptoms when she should have been self-isolating.
But the city executive, 46, claimed she had not broken the law by attending the club as she was exempt from isolation rules.
This sparked a long-running battle with the private members club, which has counted fashion designer Paul Smith, broadcaster Richard Dimbleby and judge Baroness Butler-Sloss among its upmarket clientele.
It comes as she is facing another legal bill for nearly £20,000, after she secretly turned her £32,000-a-year flat near Buckingham Palace into an AirBnB against her landlord's rules.
The alarm was raised after neighbours in Buckingham Gate reported holidaymakers arriving with suitcases and 'marauding around' on the roof at night. She denied the accusations, blaming a friend for letting it while she was away, but was successfully sued for possession by the property's owners.
Ms Mok said that the Lansdowne Club's disciplinary process was biased against her because she had criticised the management and that expelling her permanently was over-the-top.
But after a trial at the High Court, her case was thrown out by Mr Justice Ritchie - and now, after a further hearing, she has been left facing bills estimated at more than £600,000 for her failed bid to reclaim her membership.
Gina Mok (pictured) was removed as a member of the prestigious Lansdowne Club, in Mayfair, in November 2021 after twice turning up with Covid-like symptoms when she should have been self-isolating
The city executive, 46, (pictured outside Central London County Court) claimed she had not broken the law by attending the club as she was exempt from isolation rules
Ms Mok said that the Lansdowne Club's (pictured) disciplinary process was biased against her because she had criticised the management and that expelling her permanently was over-the-top
The judge said the club had proved unvaccinated Ms Mok broke the law when she attended the club on consecutive days in October 2021 when she had just returned from a trip to Bulgaria and should have been isolating.
He ordered her to pay the club's lawyers' bills for the trial, with £350,000 up front, which will be on top of £62,000 already ordered following pre-trial hearings and her own budgeted costs of around £200,000.
The Lansdowne Club, close to Mayfair's Berkeley Square, was founded in 1935 as a 'social, residential and athletic club for members of social standing.'
Ms Mok moved to London in 2008, having attended two Ivy League business schools in the US.
She became a member of the club in 2015, and a member of its council in 2021.
She found herself in trouble with the club when, following a trip to Bulgaria in October 2021, she attended a meeting after which she was told that Covid rules meant that she should have been isolating at home, if not exempt.
Ms Mok said she did not realise the rules had changed while she was away, but despite checking that evening, she returned to the club again the following day, the court heard.
A disciplinary process then took place with the club committee voting to oust her in November of that year, having found that she had broken the law on club premises.
It comes as she is facing another legal bill for nearly £20,000, after she secretly turned her £32,000-a-year flat near Buckingham Palace into an AirBnB against her landlord's rules
After a trial at the High Court, her case was thrown out by Mr Justice Ritchie - and now, after a further hearing, she has been left facing bills estimated at more than £600,000 for her failed bid to reclaim her membership of the historic club (pictured)
At the High Court last month, Ms Mok sued the company behind the club, Fitzmaurice House Ltd, claiming that it had been wrong to expel her.
She claimed that the club had 'no reasonable grounds' for her expulsion and that it had not acted in 'good faith,' instead expelling her because they disliked that she had asked 'difficult questions' about alleged 'gross financial mismanagement' at the club.
In her evidence, Ms Mok said she had not known she was breaching the regulations on her first visit and that by the time of the second she had been told by her GP and NHS 119 that she was 'exempt' due to her medical status.
But the judge rejected her evidence, saying he did not accept her claim of having been told by her GP that she was exempt or of having had 'confirmation of exempt status' from NHS 119.
Mr Justice Ritchie found that she did break the law and that at the end of her case in court she had 'as much as conceded that none of her pleaded allegations of gross financial mismanagement and top level cover ups were made out.'
'I find, on the balance of probabilities, that she broke the law when she went to the club on 26 and 27 October 2021 and, on 27 October 2021, she did so intentionally in the knowledge that she should be in quarantine,' he said.
'The claimant submitted that her breaches were unintentional and that no one was injured or put at risk.
'However, the club found that on 27 October 2021 she intentionally breached the Covid Regulations in the knowledge that she should have been isolating and I have made the same factual finding.
At the High Court last month, Ms Mok sued the company behind the club, Fitzmaurice House Ltd, claiming that it had been wrong to expel her. Pictured: Inside The Lansdowne Club
'The club also found on undisputed evidence that the claimant had flu/Covid symptoms when she visited.
'In addition, in my judgment, the claimant made the process of dealing with her conduct painful for the club and for those in the council.
'She showed no remorse, provided no apology and raised medical matters with no medical evidence in support. The claimant also wrongfully denied putting other members at risk of infection.
'Committing crimes on club premises is, in my judgment, a matter of high seriousness, particularly Covid-related crime at a time when the whole country was worried - and it was not disproportionate for the council to consider its power to request resignation or to determine that expulsion was the correct sanction.'
Her claim having been dismissed, the case returned to court yesterday as the club's barrister David Reade KC argued that Ms Mok should be ordered to pay its lawyers' bills for the case.
He said she had 'advanced a false account of events' to the club and then continued that with 'false evidence' in court when saying she had been told she was exempt from self-isolation before her second visit.
'This is not a case of memory becoming dimmed with the passage of time or later confusion,' he said. 'This was a deliberately false account advanced at the time…and a falsehood persisted in to trial.'
Ruling on the costs issue, the judge agreed, criticising Ms Mok as 'dishonest' and ordering her to pay the costs of the case.
He said: 'The claimant made a false account of events to the council and committee of the club.
Her claim having been dismissed, the case returned to court yesterday as the club's barrister David Reade KC argued that Ms Mok should be ordered to pay its lawyers' bills for the case. Pictured: The pool at The Lansdowne Club
'She admitted in evidence - and I also found - that her account was false. She did not have an exemption to the Covid restrictions and she said she did.
'She made scurrilous allegations about the chairwoman of the club and did not engage in alternative dispute resolution.'
He added that the club had 'offered early doors' to part refund £560 in relation to her cancelled membership and had made other attempts to settle the case before trial.
'I consider that the behaviour of the claimant is out of the norm in litigation because of her dishonesty,' he said.
'She was dishonest to the council members she spoke to, and she admitted that her witness statement included falsehoods.
'She grossly and unjustifiably expanded her allegations against the club. I consider she was seeking to attract publicity by the breadth of the allegations.
'I consider that this is conduct outside the norm.'
He ordered her to pay the club's costs, on the more stringent 'indemnity' basis as a result of the way she behaved during the row with the club, with £350,000 up front.
That is on top of £62,000 she was ordered to pay following pre-trial hearings and her own lawyers' bills, which were budgeted at around £200,000, David Reade KC for Fitzmaurice House Limited said outside court after the hearing.
Ms Mok faces a further bill following a second case found against her last month, when she was found to be flogging her rented property on AirBnB.
A judge found against her last year and now, after a failed bid to overturn the decision, she has been left facing an £18,721 charge.
The businesswoman took the tenancy on the flat - 200 metres from the palace and next door to Westminster Chapel - in May 2022, beginning on July 1.
She paid the £32,000 rent up front, but lawyers for her landlord said had almost immediately begun letting it as an Airbnb, against rules in her lease.
Contractors spoke of attending in mid-July to find people arriving with suitcases, while there were further complaints of people 'marauding on its roof at night.'
At the trial of the landlord's possession claim last year, its barrister Louis Grandjouan said there were reasons why it did not want it to be sub-let.
Such behaviour can result in nuisance for neighbours or trouble for the landlord with the local council over licensing conditions, he said.
'There is extensive evidence that the property was sublet on Airbnb by the defendant,' he told District Judge Worthington last year.
'The defendant has not accounted for the reports of individuals arriving at the property with suitcases, or roaming around on the property roof, despite the latter behaviour being precisely the sort of conduct which is apt to cause annoyance to neighbours and difficulties for the landlord.'
He said evidence of its Airbnb use included the listings online, 'various reports' to the estate agents and a 'test-purchase' booking of a stay by the landlord's solicitors in March last year.
Ms Mok denied being responsible for subletting, claiming that the listing resulting in the March booking had been done while she was in the US and wihtout her knowledge by a friend.
At the end of the trial, Judge Worthington found against Ms Mok, finding that the property had been sublet on Airbnb against the terms of the lease 'from time to time.'
But she fought on, with her barrister Zhen Ye yesterday applying for permission to appeal against the decision before Judge Alan Saggerson at the same court.
Rejecting her appeal application, Judge Saggerson said Ms Mok's problem was that Judge Worthington had heard the evidence and 'didn't believe a word' of her denials.
The decision means the decision last year to hand possession of the flat to the landlord stands, as well as the £18,721 Ms Mok will have to pay towards its lawyers' bills.
The court heard she had also claimed against the landlord at the trial for breach of rules dictating the protection of her deposit, with the judge awarding her £3,150 - the same amount as her deposit - in compensation.
The judge said the landlord had not placed her deposit in a protection scheme within the 30-day time limit, although they had done afterwards.
