header-logo header-logo

01 April 2020 / Neil Parpworth
Issue: 7881 / Categories: Features , Covid-19 , Public
printer mail-detail

The Coronavirus Act 2020

18643
Neil Parpworth considers the Schedule 21 powers relating to potentially infectious individuals

The Coronavirus Bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 19 March 2020. In its original form, the Bill consisted of 87 clauses and 27 schedules. Following an expedited passage through Parliament this had increased to 102 sections and 29 Schedules by the date of Royal Assent (25 March 2020).

The Act provides for a raft of powers and duties that are regarded as being necessary in order to tackle the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. They relate to matters such as the emergency registration of health professionals, the registration of deaths and still-births, as well as food supply and inquests.

For present purposes, however, attention will focus on the powers relating to people who are potentially infectious. These are to be found in s 51 and Schedule 21 to the Act. Section 51 rather innocuously provides that: ‘Schedule 21 confers powers relating to potentially infectious persons and makes related provision.’

Turn to Schedule 21, however, and the reader

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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll