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
NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Jackson Lees Group—Jannina Barker, Laura Beattie & Catherine McCrindle

Firm promotes senior associate and team leader as wills, trusts and probate team expands

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Asserson—Michael Francos-Downs

Manchester real estate finance practice welcomes legal director

NEWS
Read All
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: Neutral counsel in a polarised age
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll