Thanks for following our blog regarding today’s hearing as the Home Office fights an injunction blocking it from housing asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel.

For the latest news and breaking news visit: News – Latest UK & World News Stories | Express.co.uk

Stay up to date with all the big headlines, pictures, analysis, opinion and video on the stories that matter to you.

Follow our social media accounts here on facebook.com/DailyExpress and @‌Daily_Express

Three senior judges are now set to rule on whether to overturn a temporary injunction aimed to block asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping on Friday.

It comes after Mr Justice Eyre granted Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) an interim injunction last week.

The authority claimed that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers.

Becca Jones, director of asylum support in the Home Office, said in a witness statement that granting the injunction “risks setting a precedent which would have a serious impact on the Secretary of State’s ability to house vulnerable people, both by encouraging other local authorities to seek such interim injunctions pending the outcome of substantive planning law complaints and those who seek to target asylum accommodation in acts of public disorder”.

Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, in written submissions on Thursday, said that Mr Justice Eyre “overlooked” the “hardship” that would be caused to asylum seekers if they were required to move.

He said that the “extremely high-profile nature of the issue” created a “risk of a precedent being set”.

The Bell Hotel became the focal point of several protests and counter-protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl last month.

Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied the offence and has been on trial this week.

Another man who was living at the site, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over alleged disorder outside the hotel.

Robin Green, appearing for Epping Forest District Council at the Court of Appeal, said that the Home Office should not be involved in the case as it “came too late to the party”.

He also said the council took a decision to issue injunction proceedings against Somani Hotels on August 5, several days before it filed documents at the High Court on August 12.

Lord Justice Bean responded: “Why not send a letter before action [to Somani Hotels] saying ‘unless you cease this use immediately, we are going to issue High Court proceedings?’”

Mr Green replied that “a letter was not sent, and perhaps a letter should have been sent”, but said that Mr Justice Eyre “was aware of all this” when he made his decision to issue the temporary injunction.

Robin Green, for Epping Forest District Council, told the Court of Appeal that the authority had not previously taken enforcement action against Somani Hotels over the use of the Bell Hotel in Epping to house asylum seekers because it had been “unproblematic”.

The hotel has housed single adult male asylum seekers since April 2025, and from October 2022 to April 2024.

It had also accommodated asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, but this year marked the first time the council had taken enforcement action when it issued legal proceedings earlier this month.

Mr Green told the court that enforcement action had not been taken before because previous periods of the hotel being used as asylum seeker accommodation were “tolerable”.

Mr Green said: “A decision not to take enforcement action at one point in time does not mean it cannot take a different decision at a later point in time if circumstances change.

“On the evidence, circumstances had undoubtedly changed.”

Concluding his submissions on behalf of the Home Office, Edward Brown KC said that Epping Forest District Council has “effectively conceded” that the injunction “was in truth only ever about protests”.

He continued that the injunction had not stopped protests taking place around asylum seeker accommodation and was “simply the wrong tool for doing so”.

In his closing submissions, Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel, said the injunction “robbed” the company of the “ability for dialogue” with the authority.

He also said that there were “other and more appropriate” solutions to the council’s concerns.

Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said they would leave the courtroom briefly.

He said: “What we need to discuss is when we will be in a position to give a judgment.”

Three senior judges will rule on whether to overturn a temporary injunction which is set to block asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, at 2pm on Friday.

At the end of today’s hearing, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said that they would hand down their judgment on Friday afternoon.

He said: “Because of the great urgency of this matter, we will aim to give judgment at 2pm tomorrow.”

He continued: “If it proves impractical for us to meet the deadline, we will let people know in advance.”

An injunction that is set to temporarily block asylum seekers from being housed at an Essex hotel could spark further protests, the Court of Appeal has been told.

Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel in Epping, and the Home Office are seeking to challenge a High Court ruling that will stop 138 asylum seekers from being housed there beyond September 12.

In a ruling last week, Mr Justice Eyre granted Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) an interim injunction after the authority claimed that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers.

In written submissions for the hearing on Thursday, Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, said: “The granting of an interim injunction in the present case runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further protests, some of which may be disorderly, around other asylum accommodation.”

Robin Green pointed out that the government had not previously intervened in similar cases in the past.

He said: “In none of them was the secretary of state a party in none of them did the secretary of state seek to intervene.

“It is true that the defendants in those cases included the contractors engaged by the Home Office to secure accommodation but in none of them was it deemed appropriate for the sec of state to be a defendant or intervene.”

Lord Justice Bean responded: “Why not send a letter before action (to Somani Hotels) saying ‘unless you cease this use immediately, we are going to issue High Court proceedings?”‘

Mr Green replied that “a letter was not sent, and perhaps a letter should have been sent”, but said that Mr Justice Eyre “was aware of all this” when he made his decision to issue the temporary injunction.

Robin Green, appearing for Epping Forest District Council at the Court of Appeal, said that the Home Office should not be involved in the case as it “came too late to the party”.

He also said the council took a decision to issue injunction proceedings against Somani Hotels on August 5, several days before it filed documents at the High Court on August 12.

Epping Forest District Council solicitor Robin Green will now give evidence.

The court will reconvene at 2pm.

Becca Jones, director of asylum support in the Home Office, said it would be “significant” to lose 152 bedspaces from the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex.

In a witness statement referenced in the Court of Appeal hearing on Thursday, Ms Jones said there were 103,684 accommodated asylum-seekers as of March 31, higher than in 2024.

“In this context, and at this time, the loss of 152 bedspaces is significant when considering the Home Office’s legal duty,” she said.

Ms Jones added: “The availability of the hotel is also important in enabling the Secretary of State to meet her duty to accommodate future asylum seekers going forward, in circumstances where the pressure on available properties is significant and increasing.”

Somani Hotels’ legal team told judges that the case does not warrant emergency court action.

Barrister Piers Riley-Smith said injunctions are “an exceptional step and one used for the most serious planning harms which justify restraint by the courts.”

He pressed the panel: “What is the immediate urgent planning harm which in the context of interim relief means it can’t even wait until the final hearing?”

The lawyer argued the sudden shift over the Bell Hotel appeared to have been driven by protests.

He added: “We’d respectfully submit that a protest cannot be a weighty planning harm such as to justify a planning injunction.”

Epping Forest District Council has argued in court papers that local issues cannot be sidelined in favour of housing asylum seekers.

Its lawyers said migrant hotels do not enjoy “special dispensation” under planning rules.

They also rejected the Home Office’s position that the two sides’ “public interest” arguments are “not equal.”

According to the documents: “The planning regime enacted by Parliament does not give the SSHD or hotel operators special dispensation merely because they are accommodating asylum seekers.

“Nor has Parliament decreed that the public interest in accommodating asylum seekers trumps the public interest in maintaining planning control… particularly where there is public disorder, although that appears to be the [Home Secretary’s] assumption.”

Several other councils are understood to be considering legal action similar to that brought by Epping Forest District Council against the Bell Hotel.

Officials in other areas are closely monitoring the Court of Appeal proceedings to see how judges interpret the planning and statutory issues involved.

The outcome could influence whether councils pursue injunctions to block hotels from being used to house asylum seekers.

Legal observers say the case may set a template for challenges by authorities facing community tensions over migrant accommodation.

The latest Home Office data, published last week as part of the usual quarterly immigration statistics, shows there were 32,059 asylum seekers in UK hotels by the end of June.

This was up from 29,585 at the same point a year earlier, when the Conservatives were still in power, but down slightly on the 32,345 figure at the end of March.

Last week, the High Court granted an interim injunction preventing the Bell Hotel in Epping from housing asylum seekers beyond September 12.

The case was brought by Epping Forest District Council, whose Conservative leader, Chris Whitbread, said the authority was “frustrated that the Home Office continues not to listen.”

Mr Justice Eyre ruled that the council had not definitively shown the hotel breached planning rules but said the owners had “sidestepped public scrutiny” by accommodating asylum seekers without planning permission.

The judge decided it was not necessary for the Home Office to be involved in the hearing, stating that its participation would cause “loss of yet further court time.”

The ruling focused on whether to grant a temporary injunction while the legal dispute over planning permission is resolved.

Speaking to Sky News, Rozenberg explained the position of the Bell Hotel’s owners, saying their argument “is very much separate to the Home Office”.

He said their lawyers will argue that there is “no problem over planning permission” and that any dispute over whether the hotel is being used as a hostel “can be sorted out later.”

He noted that the High Court was weighing whether to grant a temporary injunction or allow residents to remain, with the judge “weighing the two options under the balance of convenience.”

Mr Rozenberg said the Court of Appeal has not indicated how it will allocate hearing time or when a decision might be made. He added that the case could set a precedent for other councils and hotels dealing with asylum accommodation disputes.

Speaking to Sky News, Joshua Rozenberg, a legal commentator and former barrister, said the Home Office is arguing that the High Court judge “got it wrong last week when Mr Justice Eyre treated it as a planning dispute.”

Mr Rozenberg said that “not only did the judge not look at that statutory duty, he didn’t even allow the Home Office to be represented at the hearing last week.”

He added that the Home Office’s first task is “to persuade the Court of Appeal that the judge was wrong and to allow them to become a party to the case.”

He also noted that the case is being treated as urgent, with councils across the country “watching closely” to see the outcome.

Mr Brown continued: “Epping has never taken planning enforcement action against Somani in this respect, although it has been on notice of the intended use of the Hotel since February 2025.

“The hotel was also previously used for the same purpose for a number of years from May 2020 to March 2021 and then again from October 2022 to April 2024, with the full knowledge of Epping.”

Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, said in written submissions that at the time of the High Court hearing on August 15, there were 138 asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel, lower than its total capacity of 152.

He said: “There is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard; namely that the lower court’s approach, if correct, substantially interferes with the discharge by the Home Secretary of a fundamental statutory duty conferred upon her by Parliament in relation to the accommodation of very large numbers of, potentially, destitute asylum seekers.

“Epping’s interest in enforcement of planning control is important and in the public interest.

“However, the [Home Secretary’s] statutory duty is a manifestation of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 3 ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], which establishes non derogable fundamental human rights.”

Mr Riley-Smith continued: “The issue of the use of hotels for asylum seekers is one of national importance and scrutiny given the role it plays in (the Home Office’s) approach to meeting their statutory duty.

“The learned judge’s decision has received unprecedented media coverage and has been cited as setting a precedent for further injunctions to be sought by other local authorities.

“In the context of this national attention, and the real risk of further injunctions being made shortly, the appeal raises an important question on which further argument and a decision of the appeal court would be to the public advantage.”

In written submissions for its appeal bid, Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said the Court of Appeal should “exercise its discretion” and quash the injunction made last week.

He said the “extremely high-profile nature of the issue” created a “risk of a precedent being set as a number of other local authorities are reported to be considering similar injunctions to address the use of hotels for asylum seekers”.

The Home Office’s bid to appeal against a temporary injunction which is set to block asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, has begun at the Court of Appeal.

The hearing before Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb at the Royal Courts of Justice is expected to conclude later on Thursday.

As well as Epping, demonstrations have taken place outside multiple hotels housing asylum seekers in towns such as London, Liverpool, and Peterborough. P

rotesters have clashed with counter-demonstrators, resulting in arrests for public order offences and increased police presence at several sites.

The unrest reflects wider local tensions over the use of hotels for asylum accommodation, rather than incidents at any single location.

Councils and the Home Office face mounting pressure to manage community concerns while maintaining provision for asylum seekers.

The Bell Hotel in Epping has been the focus of repeated protests and counter-protests in recent weeks over its use to house asylum seekers.

Tensions followed charges against two residents: Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, and Mohammed Sharwarq, facing seven separate offences.

Police have made multiple arrests in response to disorder among protesters outside the hotel.

The demonstrations coincide with Epping Forest District Council’s legal bid to block the hotel’s continued use for asylum accommodation, a case now heading to the Court of Appeal.

Speaking on August 19, Mr Justice Eyre said that it was “not necessary” for the Home Office to be involved in the case, stating that it would cause the “loss of yet further court time”.

In his ruling, the judge stated that the council had not “definitively established” that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, but said that the company had “sidestepped public scrutiny and explanation” by housing asylum seekers at the site without planning permission.

He continued that “the strength of the claimant’s case is such that it weighs in favour” of granting the injunction.

Announcing the Home Office’s intention to seek to appeal on Friday, security minister Dan Jarvis said that the Government had “made a commitment that we will close all of the asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament”, but that “we need to do that in a managed and ordered way”.

Barristers for the council told the High Court at a hearing on August 15 that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using the hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.

But lawyers for Somani Hotels said that the hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021, from October 2022 to April 2024, and since April 2025, and that the council had never previously sought to take action against it.

Shortly before judgment was handed down on August 19, the Home Office asked to intervene in the case.

Edward Brown KC, for the department, said that the injunction would “substantially impact on the Home Secretary’s statutory duties” to asylum seekers and added that the move “causes particular acute difficulties at the present date”.

Nilufa Hassan resigned as a director of Somani Hotels on Tuesday, just 48 hours before Thursday’s key Court of Appeal hearing over the Bell Hotel in Epping, Company House records have shown.

Her sudden departure comes as the Home Office also seeks to intervene in the case, citing pressures on the asylum system.

The timing of her decision will inevitably raise questions about leadership stability ahead of the high-profile hearing.

The company is fighting a legal battle against Epping Forest District Council, which claims the hotel was unlawfully used to house asylum seekers.

The appeal bids come in the same week as a resident at the hotel, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, has been on trial accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl last month.

Multiple demonstrations were held at the Bell Hotel after Kebatu was charged.

Another man who was living at the site, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over alleged disorder outside the hotel.

The council issued legal proceedings earlier this month, with its Conservative leader, Chris Whitbread, claiming that the authority was “frustrated that the Home Office continues not to listen”.

The Home Office’s bid to challenge the decision to temporarily block the owner of the Bell Hotel in Epping from housing asylum seekers is due to get underway at the Court of Appeal on Thursday.

Last week, Mr Justice Eyre granted an interim injunction to Epping Forest District Council, stopping the hotel’s owner, Somani Hotels, from using the Essex hotel to accommodate asylum seekers beyond September 12.

The authority asked for an injunction to be granted after the hotel became the focal point of several protests and counter-protests in recent weeks.

The Home Office and Somani Hotels will both seek to challenge the ruling at a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice in London, with the department also in a bid to appeal against Mr Justice Eyre’s decision not to let it intervene in the case.

The hearing before Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb is due to start at 10am.

An injunction that is set to temporarily block asylum seekers from being housed at an Essex hotel could spark further protests, the Court of Appeal has been told.

Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel in Epping, and the Home Office are seeking to challenge a High Court ruling that will stop 138 asylum seekers from being housed there beyond September 12.

In a ruling last week, Mr Justice Eyre granted Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) an interim injunction after the authority claimed that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers.

Other councils, including Labour-run authorities, have since publicly announced their intention to seek legal advice over whether they could achieve similar injunctions for hotels in their areas.

Mr Brown said:

He continued: “This injunction essentially incentivises other authorities who wish to remove asylum accommodation to move urgently to court before capacity elsewhere in the system becomes exhausted. That creates a chaotic and disorderly approach.”