Ministers braced for further legal challenges after High Court Epping decision

Ministers could face further legal challenges over asylum hotels after a council was granted a temporary injunction blocking migrants from being housed there.

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage hailed the High Court decision in Epping as a “victory” and said he hopes it “provides inspiration to others across the country”, while the shadow home secretary argued that residents have “every right to object” to people being housed in their area.

The 12 councils where Reform UK is the largest party are understood to be exploring the prospect of legal challenges following Tuesday’s ruling.

The Home Office had warned the judge that an injunction could “interfere” with the department’s legal obligations, and lawyers representing the hotel’s owner argued it would set a “precedent”.

Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel.

The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Reacting to the news, Mr Farage said that “young, undocumented males who break into the UK illegally should NOT be free to walk the streets anywhere. They must be detained and deported”.

“I hope that Epping provides inspiration to others across the country,” he said.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch suggested that the migrants housed at the hotel “need to be moved out of the area immediately”, while her shadow home secretary Chris Philp said that “residents should never have had to fight their own government just to feel safe in their own town”.

He said: “Local residents have every right to feel safe in their own streets and every right to object when their community is treated as a dumping ground.”

Border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said the Government will “continue working with local authorities and communities to address legitimate concerns”.

She added: “Our work continues to close all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.”

Lawyers for the Home Office had warned the court that an injunction “runs the risk of acting as an impetus for further violent protests”.

Edward Brown KC also said the injunction would “substantially interfere” with the Home Office’s statutory duty in potentially avoiding a breach of the asylum seekers’ human rights.

Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl.

Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied the charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month.

A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel.

In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12.

He also refused to give Somani Hotels Limited, the hotel’s owner, the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment.

Piers Riley-Smith, for the company, asked the judge to be allowed to appeal against the ruling, citing its “wide-reaching ramifications”.

He said that there was a “compelling reason for the appeal to be heard”, including the “precedent that would be set” by the ruling and the impact that it could have “on the wider strategy of the (Home Secretary) in relation to the housing of asylum seekers in hotels as part of meeting their statutory duties”.