How the League Against Cruel Sports Wasted Donor Money Fighting a Case It Could Never Win
By The Editor, Wildlife Betrayed
In one of the most irresponsible acts of governance ever seen in Britain’s animal welfare sector, the trustees of the League Against Cruel Sports have squandered tens of thousands of pounds of donor money in a doomed legal battle against their own former chief executive—a case they have now lost.
New reporting by Third Sector confirms that the League has agreed to pay £29,505 to Andy Knott, who served as CEO from 2018 until March 2024, for breach of contract—specifically, the charity’s refusal to honour a three-month pay-in-lieu-of-notice (PILON) arrangement following his departure.
Crucially, this was not a matter for the Employment Tribunal, as many may have assumed. The case was brought in the High Court, meaning the legal costs borne by the charity will likely dwarf the amount it has finally agreed to pay. Yet even at this late hour, the League has refused to disclose the full costs of its folly to members and supporters.
How Trustees Failed Their Legal and Moral Duties
The blame lies squarely with the League’s board of trustees—Dan Norris (then Chair), Astrid Clifford, Ashleigh Fiona Brown, and Viktoria Petrova—who voted to reject the payment and fight the claim, despite clear legal advice that the contract was enforceable and the charity was at risk of losing. Chris Luffingham, then Acting CEO, offered no leadership and allowed the board to pursue a reckless course of action that no competent executive would have sanctioned.
The result? A legal bill larger than the original obligation, reputational damage, and a High Court precedent confirming that the League breached its contract.
This is not merely a matter of poor judgment. These trustees and former Chair Dan Norris must now be held personally accountable for the costs incurred. Their actions were not in the best interests of the charity. They were negligent, arrogant, and arguably abusive of their positions of trust.
Donor Funds Misused
Let us be clear: this money came from public donations—from people who believe in ending the cruel and illegal hunting of animals with dogs. They did not donate so that a group of trustees could indulge in institutional revenge against a departing CEO. Nor did they give so that lawyers could profit from the League’s internal dysfunction.
Yet that is exactly what has happened. And to compound the insult, the trustees then co-opted Dan Norris back into the Chair’s role after his earlier resignation, despite his failure to perform his duties the first time. That decision—taken knowingly—showed utter contempt for the League’s members and its mission. Incredibly, Norris resigned again on 5 April 2025 following his arrest on suspicion of rape and child sex offences. The fact that these trustees saw fit to reappoint him at all reflects a level of negligence bordering on wilful misconduct.
Charity Commission Must Act
The remaining claims against the League—including allegations of political interference and a £3 million negligence lawsuit—are still active. The League has made no admission of liability in respect of those matters, but it is clear that its governance is now a danger to its own survival.
The Charity Commission can no longer remain silent. It must investigate whether the trustees have breached their duties under charity law, particularly regarding financial stewardship and their failure to act in the League’s best interests.
What’s more, there must be an inquiry into whether trustees and senior executives can be compelled to reimburse the charity for the losses they have inflicted. The alternative is to let impunity reign—and watch the League sink under the weight of its own mismanagement.
Conclusion
The League claims it is “leading the fight against cruel sports.” But right now, the only thing its trustees are leading is a slow, embarrassing collapse into legal chaos and donor betrayal. Their enemies couldn’t do more damage than this if they tried.
The PILON case is just the start. If the wider legal actions succeed, the cost to the League—and to the cause of animal welfare—may be incalculable.
What the League Should Have Done
How competent trustees could have avoided a High Court humiliation
1. Paid the PILON as required by contract
Andy Knott’s right to three months’ pay in lieu of notice was clear. Fighting it was not just pointless—it was legally reckless. A responsible board would have settled this quietly.
2. Recognised the financial risk of High Court action
Choosing the High Court over the Employment Tribunal dramatically increased the charity’s exposure to legal costs. Trustees gambled with donor money and lost—badly.
3. Challenged, not enabled, poor leadership
Trustees failed to question or halt this course of action. Instead, they enabled it—placing loyalty to the internal clique above loyalty to the cause.
4. Kept supporters informed
The League never told members it was fighting a High Court claim, or that it risked losing tens of thousands in legal fees. There was no consultation, no disclosure, and no accountability.
5. Refused to co-opt Dan Norris
After his resignation, Norris should have remained gone. Bringing him back—despite a track record of absenteeism and misjudgement—was indefensible and insulting to the membership.
6. Accepted responsibility and offered redress
A real charity would have apologised to supporters, issued a financial summary, and reviewed its governance. The League did none of this.
7. Prepared for regulatory scrutiny
Given the scale of the governance failure, the trustees should have referred themselves to the Charity Commission and offered full cooperation. Instead, silence and secrecy continue.
8. Considered personal liability
Where trustee decisions directly harm a charity’s finances, regulators have the power to investigate personal liability. The four trustees involved—Norris, Clifford, Brown and Petrova—must face that scrutiny.
9. Never reinstated Dan Norris
Dan Norris had already failed once as Chair. His reappointment was unjustifiable—made worse by his subsequent arrest and second resignation in April 2025. Trustees knowingly put the League’s credibility and reputation at further risk.
What Supporters Are Saying
Voices the League chooses to ignore
“They fought a case they couldn’t win and now pretend nothing happened.”
— League member, Norfolk
“You don’t lose a High Court case and walk away pretending you did your job.”
— Former support group organiser
“They reappointed Dan Norris like nothing was wrong. That told me everything.”
— Donor since 2015, London
“How can this charity spend more on lawyers than on campaigns and expect my support?”
— Ex-campaigner, name withheld
“If trustees wasted £30k, they should pay it back. It’s not their private fiefdom.”
— Long-time anti-hunting activist, Wales
“The Charity Commission can’t keep ducking this. It’s blatant mismanagement.”
— Supporter email to regulator, May 2025
“They brought Dan Norris back even after he quit the first time—then he gets arrested and quits again. What sort of governance is this?”
— Former volunteer, Gloucestershire
