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 on Friday.
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.
Mr Justice Eyre granted Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) an interim injunction last week 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.
The Home Office is also seeking to challenge the judge’s decision not to let it intervene in the case.
At the end of a hearing on Thursday, 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.”
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.
The hotel previously housed asylum seekers from May 2020 to March 2021; from October 2022 to April 2024; and since April 2025.
Single males were also housed at the hotel between October 2022 and April 2024 but this year marked the first time the council had taken enforcement action, when it issued legal proceedings earlier this month.
In written submissions for Thursday’s hearing, Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, said Mr Justice Eyre had “no regard to the obvious risk that other local planning authorities would adopt the same approach” as EFDC.
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.”
He added: “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.
“This is on the basis that the protests in Epping appear to be a material factor behind the decision now to bring this claim and not to take planning enforcement action as would normally be expected.”
In a witness statement referenced during Thursday’s hearing, Becca Jones, director of asylum support in the Home Office, said 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”.
Mr Riley-Smith also said that the injunction would cause “financial harm” to the company, having told a previous hearing that the contract to accommodate asylum seekers was a “lifeline” and that the hotel had been only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers.
The council is opposing the appeal bids, with barrister Philip Coppel KC stating in written submissions that the case “sets no precedent” and there was “no compelling reason” for the injunction to be overturned.
He said: “In substance, the (Home Secretary)’s factual case is based on generalised assertions, which do not in any way diminish the evidence presented by EFDC.”
He continued: “There was no error of law in the judge’s approach, and his decision, based on a carefully calibrated assessment of the relevant factors, was open to him.”
In court, Robin Green, also representing the authority, said it had not previously taken enforcement action against Somani Hotels over the use of the Bell as it had been “unproblematic”.
He 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.”
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage previously hailed the High Court decision as a “victory” and said he hoped it “provides inspiration to others across the country”.
He also indicated that the 12 councils where Reform UK was the largest party would consider legal challenges.
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”.
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.
