header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
08 April 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7882 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law , Covid-19
printer mail-detail

An extraordinary Act of Parliament

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
18953
Michael Zander on the Coronavirus Act 2020
  • A Government amendment allows for a Commons vote every six months as to whether the Act should continue in force.
  • Despite time constraints, both the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Lords Constitution Committee had the time to produce reports.

‘Coronavirus is the most serious public health emergency that has faced the world in a century. . . To defeat it, we are proposing extraordinary measures of a kind never seen before in peacetime.’ (Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, 23 March, HoC, col 35)

The Coronavirus Act has 102 sections (72pp) and 29 Schedules (275pp)—a total of 347 pages. It was introduced in the Commons on Thursday 19 March; went through all its stages in the House of Commons on Monday 23 March; was introduced and had its 2nd Reading in the Lords on 24 March; went through its remaining stages on 25 March and received Royal Assent the same day.

Mr Hancock told the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Forbes Solicitors—Stephen Barnfield

Regulatory team boosted by partner hire amid rising health and safety demand

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Arc Pensions Law—Kris Weber

Legal director promoted to partner at specialist pensions firm

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Clarke Willmott—Jonathan Cree

Residential development capability expands with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll