logo
Dog home boss mauled by rescued American bulldog SUES charity for £200k

Dog home boss mauled by rescued American bulldog SUES charity for £200k

The Irish Sun01-07-2025
A DOG home boss is suing for more than £200,000 after being savaged by a rescued American Bulldog in a violent attack at a rehoming centre.
Karla Haines, 34, says she was left traumatised and permanently scarred after the Bulldog , named Jester, suddenly latched onto her arm and wouldn't let go during an incident at a Dogs Trust rehoming centre.
4
Ms Haines alleges that safety protocols were not followed — and that she was effectively exposed to danger in the line of duty
Credit: Champion News Service
4
The horror unfolded at the charity's Harefield site in west London, where Ms Haines was working as assistant operations manager
Credit: Dogs Trust
4
The court will now decide whether Ms Haines is entitled to the full amount she's seeking — or whether the payout will be reduced
Credit: Dogs Trust
The horror unfolded at the charity's Harefield site in
She had been called in to help deal with the misbehaving
Despite requesting that the dog be put on a lead, court papers say Jester – described as a 'fierce and mischievous'
Ms Haines, who holds a degree in animal behaviour and welfare, says the injuries have left her with long-term sensitivity in her arm and
Read more News
She is now taking legal action against her former employer, claiming Dogs Trust failed to properly manage and restrain the aggressive animal, despite being aware of the risks.
Her lawyers argue the dog should have been kept in a secure area or tied to a fixed lead point to prevent attacks on staff.
The Harefield centre, which is set in 16 acres of countryside, houses up to 150 dogs at a time in swanky kennels fitted with underfloor heating, exercise paddocks and a sensory garden.
But behind the scenes, Ms Haines alleges that safety protocols were not followed — and that she was effectively exposed to danger in the line of duty.
Most read in The Sun
Court documents state: 'The dog is and was of a fierce and mischievous disposition and/or was likely, unless restrained, to bite anyone on the defendant's premises or to cause severe injury when defending what it regarded as its own territory.'
Although Dogs Trust has admitted a breach of duty through its insurers, the charity disputes the full amount of damages being claimed and says the extent of Ms Haines' injuries are 'not admitted'.
Veterinarian Reveals the Worst Dog Breeds to Own
The Trust also insists that Ms Haines was on Jester's 'safe list' — a group of approved staff members considered capable of handling the animal without issue.
In a legal response, their solicitor Chrissie Paphitis said: 'It is averred that Jester had been placed on a lead prior to the claimant entering the compound.
'It is admitted that Jester nevertheless grabbed onto the claimant's arm and bit her.'
But she added: 'No admissions are made in respect of causation, and the claimant is put to strict proof in relation to any and all allegations of loss and damage.'
Which dog breeds are banned in the UK?
THERE are specific regulations in place that prohibit certain dog breeds from being owned or bred in the UK.
So what are the
Which dog breeds are illegal in the UK?
People tend to think of large, vicious dogs when they imagine being bitten by one.
But the truth is that many types of dogs are known to bite humans, whether provoked or not.
However, it's important to remember that just because a breed tends to bite humans, that doesn't mean that they all do.
British law determines five breeds of dog are illegal to own, breed, sell or give away.
These are an XL Bully, Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro.
Ms Haines' legal team originally valued the claim at around £60,000, but this has since ballooned to more than £200,000 as the extent of her physical and psychological injuries became clearer.
A judge at a brief pre-trial hearing earlier this month confirmed the full trial will go ahead unless a settlement is reached before then.
It's understood the case is being closely watched by other animal welfare professionals, who say it raises serious concerns about staff safety when working with rescue dogs that may have violent histories.
Dogs Trust, which was founded in 1891, is the UK's largest dog welfare charity and rehomes thousands of dogs each year. It has not commented publicly on the legal claim.
The court will now decide whether Ms Haines is entitled to the full amount she's seeking — or whether the payout will be reduced.
4
Her lawyers argue the dog should have been kept in a secure area or tied to a fixed lead point to prevent attacks on staff
Credit: Champion News Service
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Husband handed just £325k of wife's £60MILLION family fortune in bitter divorce battle WINS bid to get more cash
Husband handed just £325k of wife's £60MILLION family fortune in bitter divorce battle WINS bid to get more cash

The Irish Sun

time2 days ago

  • The Irish Sun

Husband handed just £325k of wife's £60MILLION family fortune in bitter divorce battle WINS bid to get more cash

A MAN who was awarded just £325,000 of his wife's £60 million fortune has now won a bitter divorce battle. The divorcee 2 Jenny Helliwell, 42, was said to have behaved "fraudulently" Credit: Champion News Service 2 Simon Entwistle, 42, was awarded just £325,000 after a 'painful' divorce battle Credit: Champion News Service Simon Entwistle, 42, a financial trader, was awarded just £325,000 at the High Court after a His claim of needing £36,000 a year for flights, and £26,000 for "a meal plan just for himself", was called "aspirational" by the judge. The judge added: "He said to me, 'I can't even cook an omelette,' well my answer to that is 'learn', it is not difficult." "You do not have to be a master chef to learn how to eat reasonably well." Read more News Now, a judge has found Jenny guilty of "fraudulent" behaviour by failing to declare £48m of her £66m personal fortune. The pair, who were together from 2016 until 2022, enjoyed an "opulent standard of living throughout their relationship." Simon reportedly "enjoyed the trappings of being married into a family of exceptional wealth". This included living in a £4.5m villa in Dubai, and a Parisian wedding ceremony that cost £500,000 in August 2019. Most read in The Sun The villa had been a gift from Jenny's father - Dubai-based British businessman Neil Helliwell. Simon's own assets were worth around £800,000, including a flat in Teen Mom star Ryan Edwards begs judge not to force him to expose top-secret MTV contract and NDA in nasty divorce When the couple split in August 2022, Jenny hired lawyers to order Simon to leave their home with just 48 hours' notice. It sparked a legal battle that would see Simon asking for £2.5m of his wife's fortune, estimated to be worth £60m. Jenny had offered him £500,000, and then £800,000 to avoid a However, the original judge awarded just a £400,000 payout following a pre-nuptial agreement that stated the pair would keep their own assets. This came to £325,000 after he was made to pay his wife's legal fees. During an appeal, Simon claimed he was a victim of "gender prejudice", and that the agreement had been invalidated by Jenny failing to disclose around £48m in assets when he signed the document. His lawyer said: "Had the positions been reversed, it is very unlikely that he would have... so ungenerously assessed the needs of a wife after a six-year relationship." A judge has ruled that this amounted to "fraudulent" behaviour, invalidating the agreement. While Jenny did disclose around £18m in assets, she failed to disclose an additional £47m. It included around £8m of beachfront land in Dubai, and a £1.6m property in Wimbledon. This meant that Simon did not sign the agreement with full knowledge of his partner's wealth. She did not make any findings on the gender prejudice argument. The case will now be returned to the High Court, to be judged as if the agreement didn't exist. Lady Justice King said: "Since the husband in the instant case was deliberately deprived of information which it had been agreed that he should have, in my judgment, the agreement cannot stand."

Parents of boy, 3, mauled to death by devil dogs facing jail after they ‘let him wander into pen unsupervised'
Parents of boy, 3, mauled to death by devil dogs facing jail after they ‘let him wander into pen unsupervised'

The Irish Sun

time3 days ago

  • The Irish Sun

Parents of boy, 3, mauled to death by devil dogs facing jail after they ‘let him wander into pen unsupervised'

THE parents of a three-year-old boy mauled to death by devil dogs are facing jail after they allegedly let him wander into a pen unsupervised. Daniel Twigg was savagely attacked by two 50kg Mastiff-type dogs called Sid and Tiny at a farm in Rochdale. 3 Daniel Twigg was mauled to death by two dogs Credit: PA 3 His parents have been cleared of manslaughter The animals were "not pets " and were instead used on the farm - owned by Daniel's godfather Matthew Brown - for "breeding and to act as guard dogs". Daniel's parents Mark Twigg and Joanne Bedford were in charge of eight or nine "untrained guard dogs" that were "difficult to control". Despite the RSPCA telling the couple they were a danger, the pair allegedly allowed little Daniel to enter the pen "alone and unsupervised". Twigg and Bedford have now been found not guilty of gross negligence manslaughter following a trial. But they are still facing jail after being convicted of being in charge of a dog which caused injury while dangerously out of control. Manchester Crown Court was told the pair had a "long association" with the farm where Twigg worked as an "odd job man". After owner Brown was recalled to prison, Twigg, Bedford and Daniel moved in so they could tend to the animals. The dog breeds included a Cane Corso, American Bulldog, German Shepherd, Tibetan Mastiff and a Boerboel. Most read in The Sun They lived in an "extremely unclean and impoverished environment, with no clean bedding and surrounded by their own faeces'. The animals were not let out for exercise and there were previous instances of attacks before Daniel was mauled to death. On May 15, 2022, Daniel was seen on CCTV entering the pen, which was "secured with a sliding latch and a Carabiner clip," rather than a secure lock. He was unsupervised with the dogs for at least 15 minutes before they attacked him, jurors heard. Bedford claimed she had left her son in the kitchen with his older sister while she went upstairs to get a pair of shorts for him and use the bathroom. She said she heard a blood-curdling scream from her daughter, who then cried out: "Mum, mum, Daniel's in the [dog] pen. He is face down and he's got blood everywhere." The mum, who was seven months pregnant at the time, said she rushed out to the dog pen and shoved the hulking dogs out of the way. She added: "I sat down on the floor with Daniel and asked his sister to get my phone so I could call for an ambulance. "Daniel was face down on the floor, he had gotten puncture marks all over his neck and he was bleeding. I was petrified and scared for my little boy." A 999 call was made by Daniel's mother almost 20 minutes after he was found inside the dog pen, it was said. When paramedics arrived, police were forced to use riot shields to protect them from the two killer dogs. Daniel was left with "severe damage" to his neck and also suffered "massive internal and likely plentiful external bleeding". Read more on the Irish Sun Twigg and Bedford denied gross negligence manslaughter and offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act. They will be sentenced on October 10. 3 Paramedics who attended the horror had to be protected by riot shields Credit: Steve Allen

Ex-Peppa Pig boss ‘loses £300,000 after he was sacked for brandishing a pen at his boss' in five-year court battle
Ex-Peppa Pig boss ‘loses £300,000 after he was sacked for brandishing a pen at his boss' in five-year court battle

The Irish Sun

time19-07-2025

  • The Irish Sun

Ex-Peppa Pig boss ‘loses £300,000 after he was sacked for brandishing a pen at his boss' in five-year court battle

AN EX-Peppa Pig exec has lost £300,000 after being sacked for threatening his boss with pen. Mark Dowding, who earned up to £160,000 a year at toy giant The Character Group PLC, was given the boot and left with a hefty bill after a five-year court battle. Advertisement 5 Mark Dowding former group finance director of Peppa Pig toy company The Character Group PLC took the company to an employment tribunal Credit: Champion News Service 5 The Character Group PLC are makers of Peppa Pig plushies and Doctor Who toys Credit: Champion News Service 5 Despite the ruling, the former Peppa Pig exec launched several appeals Credit: Champion News Service The former chief financial officer, who may be forced to sell his home and pension, was dismissed in 2017 after a breakdown in trust, following a heated row with his boss where he allegedly pointed a pen in a threatening way. He took the company, makers of Peppa Pig plushies and Doctor Who toys, to an employment tribunal, claiming he was unfairly dismissed and that the pen incident was fabricated. But in 2020 Employment Judge Omar Khalil said: "The tribunal concludes that the incident as described by [Mr Dowding's boss] did occur, which included the claimant pointing towards him brandishing a pen in a threatening manner." Despite the ruling, the former Peppa Pig exec launched several appeals. Advertisement LEGAL BATTLE Despite the ruling, Dowding launched several appeals and a High Court claim, running up eye-watering legal costs. One remaining claim is still live- but he's now been told it will be struck out unless he coughs up the £288,000 he owes from his failed legal bids. High Court judge Richard Spearman KC said the financial blow puts Dowding at risk of losing his £850,000 home and his pension, his only regular income. The judge quoted Greek tragedy writer Sophocles, saying: "It is a painful thing to look at your own trouble and know that you yourself and no one else has made it'. Advertisement Most read in The Sun He added: "That, in my view, is the predicament in which the claimant Mr Dowding now finds himself." THE PEN INCIDENT Mr Dowding joined The Character Group in 2012 and was earning £110,000 plus a potential 50 per cent bonus by the time of his dismissal. The 2017 incident unfolded during a heated meeting with his boss, Mr Shah. Judge Khalil said: "Their discussion became heated and voices were raised. Advertisement "The claimant accepted in evidence he raised his voice first. "Mr Shah also alleged that the claimant had pointed a pen towards him, causing Mr Shah to retreat. "This was set out in his email, which followed this altercation on the same day. "In that email, Mr Shah said: 'You raised your voice towards me in a threatening manner and pointed a pen in my face whilst rolling forward towards me with your chair. I had to roll my chair back to prevent injury to my face'.' Advertisement THE FIGHT GOES ON After losing at tribunal, Dowding refused to back down, instead filing a flurry of appeals and launching a High Court claim. In December 2023, an order was made securing his legal costs against the equity in his Rotherhithe Street home in south London. Judge Spearman said: "Essentially as a result of the way in which he chose to plead his case and to contest the efforts of TCG to restrict that case to what is properly arguable, a number of substantial orders for costs were made against Mr Dowding in July 2024. "Mr Dowding sought, but was refused, permission to appeal against those orders to the Court of Appeal. Advertisement "According to the disclosure Mr Dowding has provided, his only source of income is his personal pension, and his only substantial assets are his personal pension fund and the equity in his home. "He now faces losing that fund, and maybe also his home, to meet those costs orders. Read more on the Irish Sun "He is in a very unhappy position because, on the disclosure he has made, he can ill-afford to meet these costs liabilities: either his home may be forfeit or his pension may be forfeit - possibly, if things go on the way they have, both. "That is a consequence of bringing and pursuing expensive litigation which has all been unsuccessful, resulting in the costs orders." Advertisement 5 After losing at tribunal, Dowding refused to back down, instead filing a flurry of appeals and launching a High Court claim Credit: Champion News Service 5 Despite the ruling, Dowding launched several appeals and a High Court claim, running up eye-watering legal costs Credit: PA

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store