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.
The Home Office is also seeking to challenge the judgeâs decision not to let it intervene in the case.
In written submissions for the hearing on Thursday, Edward Brown KC, for the department, said ending the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers ârequires a structured responseâ, and that individual injunction bids âignore the obvious consequence that closure of one site means that capacity then needs to be identified elsewhereâ.
He said: âThe judge did not grapple with this. He had no regard to the obvious risk that other local planning authorities would adopt the same approach; that is to say, to use planning concerns as a means of appeasing local political unrest regarding asylum accommodation generally.
He continued: âThis 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.â
He added: âThe 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.
âThis 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.â
The Bell 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.
Granting the temporary injunction on August 19, Mr Justice Eyre stated that the council had not âdefinitively establishedâ that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, but that the company had âsidestepped public scrutiny and explanationâ by housing asylum seekers at the site without planning permission.
Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said in written submissions on Thursday that Mr Justice Eyre âoverlookedâ the âhardshipâ that would be caused to asylum seekers if they were required to move.
He continued that the âextremely high-profile nature of the issueâ created a ârisk of a precedent being setâ.
Mr Riley-Smith also said that the injunction would cause âfinancial harmâ to the company, having told a previous hearing that the contract to accommodate asylum seekers was a âlifelineâ and that the hotel had been only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers.
He said: âThe appellant would question whether the publicâs perceived risk, known to be fuelled by disinformation on social media, can translate into such a weighty planning harm commensurate to the need for immediate restraint to justify it without further testing or evidence of actual risk.â
The council is opposing the appeal bids, with barrister Philip Coppel KC stating in written submissions that the case âsets no precedentâ and there was âno compelling reasonâ for the injunction to be overturned.
He said: âIn substance, the SSHDâs factual case is based on generalised assertions, which do not in any way diminish the evidence presented by EFDC.â
He continued: âThere was no error of law in the judgeâs approach, and his decision, based on a carefully calibrated assessment of the relevant factors, was open to him.
âNotwithstanding the public controversy surrounding the judgeâs decision, it was based on the conventional application of well-settled and agreed principles of law.â
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage previously hailed the High Court decision as a âvictoryâ and said he hoped it âprovides inspiration to others across the countryâ.
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 âneed to be moved out of the area immediatelyâ, while her shadow home secretary Chris Philp said that âresidents should never have had to fight their own Government just to feel safe in their own townâ.
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.
The hearing before Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb is expected to conclude later on Thursday.
