By: Lucy McCann
22 September 2025 by Lucy McCann
In this episode, Lucy McCann is joined by Zelda Perkins, CEO of Can’t Buy My Silence UK and former PA to Harvey Weinstein, who broke her NDA and has since campaigned against the use of NDAs to silence workers speaking out against abuse, and Emma Darlow Stearn, a barrister practising from Cloisters Chambers, who specialises in employment and discrimination law and, in her previous role as Senior Legal Adviser for whistleblowing charity Protect, collaborated with Zelda to make the law on NDAs more accessible.
Zelda shares her personal story about the signing and breaking of her NDA, which had prevented her speaking up about Harvey Weinstein’s behaviour, and about her campaign Can’t Buy My Silence UK which has in large part led to amendments to the Employment Rights Bill (under Clause 22A) that will ban employers from using NDAs in cases of harassment and discrimination. Zelda and Emma discuss the nature and possible impact of those amendments which, since the time of recording, have been approved by the House of Commons and are due to become law in Autumn 2025 as s.202A Employment Rights Act 1996.
Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. This episode was co-produced by 1 Crown Office Row and Emma Darlow Stearn. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.
Like this:
Like Loading...
28 August 2025 by Lucy McCann
In this episode, Lucy McCann is joined by Professor Steven Gunn, historian at Merton College, Oxford to discuss his recent book, An Accidental History of Tudor England (co-authored with Tomasz Gromelski). They explore the world of the sixteenth century Coroners’ Court, examine what records of inquest reveal, and consider about how people died and what this can tell us about everyday life at the time, to draw comparisons with modern day inquest proceedings and coronial statistics.
Like this:
Like Loading...
12 March 2025 by Lucy McCann
Law Pod UK is marking International Women’s Day by bringing you the final episode of its three-part series exploring gender at the Bar.
In this episode Lucy and Kiran explore the themes of belonging and community at the Bar. How does imposter syndrome manifest itself? Why are role models important? How can we strengthen networks to encourage other women?
Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.
Like this:
Like Loading...
21 June 2024 by Lucy McCann
Our 200th episode is the second of our International Women’s Day series exploring gender at the Bar.
In this series, Lucy McCann and Rajkiran Arhestey speak to Lady Justice Whipple, Sally Smith KC, Clodagh Bradley KC, Cara Guthrie, Judith Rogerson, Isabel McArdle, Emma-Louise Fenelon and Chloe Turvill about their experiences, in the hope of drawing out some key reflections and continuing the conversation about gender and the profession.
In this episode, Lucy and Kiran discuss a number of issues relating to parenthood, including pregnancy, maternity and paternity leave, childcare, gendered assumptions about caring and family life.
Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on here on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.
Like this:
Like Loading...
30 April 2024 by Lucy McCann
Football fans everywhere will be familiar with reckless tackles, whether from their own Sunday league experience or as followers of the professional game. But when will a tackle amount to negligence and be actionable in a civil court, such that an injured player can sue their opponent?
In Episode 197 of Law Pod UK, 1COR members Jo Moore and Nicholas Jones join Lucy McCann to discuss how the law of personal injury applies to football.
Here are the full citations of cases discussed in the episode:
- Caldwell v Maguire [2001] EWCA Civ 1054
- Wooldridge v Sumner [1963] 2 QB 43
- Sharpe v Highland and Islands Fire Board 2008 S.C.L.R. 526
- Condon v Basi [1985] 1 WLR 866
- Czernuszka v King [2023] EWHC 380 (KB)
- Kerr v Willis [2009] EWCA Civ 1248
- Fulham v Jones [2022] EWHC 1108 (QB)
- McCord v Swansea Football Club and another [1996] 12 WLUK 409
Like this:
Like Loading...
8 March 2024 by Lucy McCann
Law Pod UK is marking International Womens’ Day 2024 with a three-part series exploring gender at the Bar.
In this series Lucy McCann and Rajkiran Barhey speak to Lady Justice Whipple, Sally Smith KC, Clodagh Bradley KC, Cara Guthrie, Judith Rogerson, Isabel McArdle, Emma-Louise Fenelon and Chloe Turvill about their experiences in the hope of drawing out some key reflections and continuing the conversation about gender and the profession.
In this first episode, Lucy and Kiran ask ‘what’s the problem?’ and cover a number of issues including gendered assumptions and stereotypes, pressure at the Bar, equal pay, and the fair allocation of work.
Like this:
Like Loading...
25 January 2024 by Lucy McCann
In Episode 192 of Law Pod UK Rachel Marcus and Marcus Coates-Walker of 1 Crown Office Row join Lucy McCann to explore the principle of the scope of duty in the context of clinical negligence claims: first by analysing the decision in Khan v Meadows and then discussing how the courts have grappled with scope of duty issues since.
Cases discussed in this episode include:
Law Pod UK is published by 1 Crown Office Row. Supporting articles are published on the UK Human Rights Blog. Follow and interact with the podcast team on Twitter.
Like this:
Like Loading...
24 April 2023 by Lucy McCann
In Episode 183 Lucy McCann speaks to Cara Guthrie and Matthew Flinn of 1 Crown Office Row about multi-defendant litigation in the field of clinical negligence. The discussion covers, who to sue, the costs implications of having multiple defendants, contribution proceedings, apportioning liability between defendants, and interim payment applications.
Cases mentioned in this episode:
Webb v Barclays Bank plc [2001] EWCA Civ 1141
Rachman v Arearose Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 190
Widdowson’s Executrix v Liberty Insurance Ltd [2021] CSOH 15
Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654
Ho v Adelekun [2021] UKSC 43
Bullock v London General Omnibus Co [1907] 1 KB 264, CA
Sanderson v Blyth Theatre Co [1903] 2 KB 533, CAA
Moon v Garrett [2006] EWCA Civ 1121
Wright v Cambridge Medical Group [2011] EWCA 669
Wagenaar v Weekend Travel Ltd t/a Ski Weekend [2014] EWCA Civ 1105
Jackson v Murray [2015] UKSC 5
ZZZ v Yeovil District Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1642 (QB)
For the latest developments in medical law, see 1 Crown Office Row’s Quarterly Medical Law Review (QMLR)
Finally, we at LawPod UK want your feedback! Please take a couple of minutes to fill in this very short anonymous survey. Thank you in advance.
www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/LawPodUK
Like this:
Like Loading...
1 March 2023 by Lucy McCann
In episode 180 of Law Pod UK, Lucy McCann speaks to Dr Stefan Theil, the John Thornley Fellow and Director of Studies in Law at Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge, about what role the law can play in tackling the climate crisis. Dr Theil discusses the framework and central argument in his recent book ‘Towards the Environmental Minimum’ (Cambridge University Press, 2021). In the episode Dr Theil argues for an incremental human rights-based approach to combat the climate crisis and environmental degradation, and explores the extent to which courts are well placed to adjudicate on environmental issues. The discussion covers the concept of polycentricity, protections offered by domestic constitutions and the value of ascribing rights beyond human beings.
Cases cited in this episode include:
R (Friends of the Earth Ltd) v Secretary of State for International Trade and ors [2023] EWCA Civ 14
BvR 2656/18 (31 March 2021) Neubauer and others v Germany
Klimatická žaloba ČR v. Czech Republic (2021)
R (Richards) v the Environment Agency [2021] 2501 (Admin).
This decision and the outcome on appeal is considered here.
Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
24 February 2023 by Lucy McCann
Restricting the liberty of a child is a serious step only to be taken in the most difficult of circumstances. Children may require secure accommodation by the Local Authority in a variety of circumstances. A child could require urgent mental health treatment in a secure hospital. A child may require strict supervision with a high staff to child ratio, in order to protect them from harm and meet their complex needs. Applications are made where a child poses a significant risk of harm to themselves or others. Applications for secure accommodation or deprivation of liberty orders have increased significantly in recent years. There is now a severe lack of regulated accommodation, and the courts are having to use their inherent jurisdiction to approve DOLS regimes where unregulated placements are the only option.
In Episode 179 of Law Pod UK Lucy McCann speaks to Richard Ager and Clare Ciborowska who examine the current situation and, in particular, consider the case of Re X (Secure Accommodation: Lack of Provision) [2023] EWHC 129 (Fam) in which Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division of the High Court, gave a scathing Judgment on the provision of secure accommodation to children in England & Wales. The episode also explores the recent decision of Manchester City Council v P ([2023] EWHC 133 (Fam) which considered whether restrictions placed on a child in respect of mobile phone/internet use amounted to a deprivation of liberty.
The episode discusses the new national deprivation of liberty court. The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory recently published this report, analysing the first two months of applications to the national deprivation of liberty court.
Law Pod UK is available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Audioboom, Player FM, ListenNotes, Podbean, iHeart, Radio Public, Deezer or wherever you listen to your podcasts. Please remember to rate and review us if you like what you hear.
Like this:
Like Loading...
18 July 2022 by Lucy McCann
Basfar v Wong [2022] UKSC 20
Judgment here, links to hearings here.
The landmark decision handed down on 6 July 2022 by a majority of 3 to 2 in the Supreme Court held that a serving diplomat does not enjoy immunity in an employment tribunal claim grounded in allegations of modern slavery.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
6 April 2022 by Lucy McCann
Attorney General for Bermuda v Roderick Ferguson & Ors (Bermuda) [2022] UKPC 5 — Judgment here, links to hearings here.
Chantelle Day & Anor v The Governor of the Cayman Islands & Anor (Cayman Islands) [2022] UKPC 6 –Judgment here, links to hearings here.
The Bermuda Case
In the Bermuda case, the Attorney General of Bermuda appealed the decision of the Court of Appeal for Bermuda (decision here), which found in favour of the Respondents: a gay Bermudian, OUTBermuda (a Bermudian LGBTQ charity), a lesbian Bermudian, and three Bermudians associated with Bermudian churches, holding that s.53 of the Domestic Partnership Act 2018 (“the DPA”) of Bermuda, which confines marriage to a union between a man and a woman, was invalid under the Bermudian Constitution (“the Constitution”).
Lord Hodge and Lady Arden (Lord Reed and Dame Victoria Sharp agreeing) gave the judgment of the Board, allowing the appeal of the Attorney General. Lord Sales gave a dissenting judgment.
Background
Same-sex marriage is highly controversial in Bermuda. The political backdrop to this case is outlined at [25-30]. Importantly, following a general election in 2017 the Progressive Labour Party introduced the Domestic Partnership Bill, which was subsequently passed, in an attempt to reach a viable compromise on the issue of same-sex marriage. The DPA provides for legally recognised domestic partnerships between any two adults, but s.53 confines marriage to a union between a man and a woman.
The Legislature in Bermuda is bound by the Constitution, summarised at [7-9]. Chapter 1 of the Constitution sets out fundamental rights and freedoms. The Constitution does not confer a right to marry. Section 8 provides for the protection of freedom of conscience:
no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience…the said freedom includes freedom, either alone or in the community with others, and both in public or in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Although Bermuda is not in Europe, the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”) applies to Bermuda as a matter of international law through declarations made by the UK pursuant to the Convention (when it was responsible for Bermudian foreign policy) and subsequently permanently renewed after Bermuda became independent. Although it does not apply in domestic Bermudian law, as one of the “antecedents” to the Constitution, it is relevant to the interpretation of constitutional rights [10-21].
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
21 February 2022 by Lucy McCann
CN v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 86
Judgment here, hearings here: part 1 and part 2.
In a judgment handed down on 4 February 2022, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal for permission to apply for judicial review concerning the lawfulness of the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS) (the “Scheme”). The Court of Appeal concluded that the Scheme’s exclusion of those infected with hepatitis B was not discriminatory. In any event, the Secretary of State’s justification for who was to be compensated under the ex gratia Scheme was to be given a wide margin of appreciation by the courts.
Background
CN
The Appellant, CN, suffers from hepatitis B virus (“HBV”) which he alleges he contracted when given blood transfusions on or after 14 April 1989. Consequently, CN has suffered from serious health problems, and was forced to abandon his business to receive medical treatment; he has been reliant on state benefits for the last 13 years. CN is a core participant in the ongoing infected blood inquiry, which was established to examine the circumstances in which NHS patients in the UK were given infected blood and blood products (read more about the Inquiry here).
In 1995, CN issued a civil claim against the NHS and the National Blood Authority (now the NHS Blood and Transplant Service). Despite obtaining expert evidence to the effect that his infection was obtained from infected blood, he had to discontinue his claim when legal aid was withdrawn.
Infected blood and the England Infected Blood Support Scheme (EIBSS)
The Scheme was set up on 1 November 2017, to provide ex gratia support to people historically infected with hepatitis C virus (“HCV”) and/or human immunodeficiency virus (“HIV”). Specifically, the 2017 Directions set out the EIBSS’s purpose as:
a scheme to make payments and provide support in respect of individuals infected with HIV or Hepatitis C (or both) from blood or blood products used by the NHS and to provide support to family members of such individuals.
The Scheme addresses the ongoing social issues concerning those infected and affected by HIV and HCV from unscreened products. The Scheme recognises a moral imperative to compensate those infected with HCV and HIV in circumstances where attempts to allege negligence against the NHS would run into significant difficulties of fault-based liability and evidential issues surrounding the state of scientific knowledge at the time. It also helps families and partners after the death of someone infected, who would otherwise be unable to make a civil claim.
Those infected with HBV do not fall within the remit of the Scheme. In basic terms, this is because the NHS screened blood and blood products for HBV from the mid 1970s, so the number of patients infected with HBV were low after screening. Within the Scheme, the cut-off date for HCV claims is September 1991, when screening was introduced. For HIV there is no cut-off, but the eligibility criteria make clear that after October 1985, when the NHS screened for HIV, it was very unlikely that HIV would be transmitted through infected blood.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
Recent comments