Senior judges have been warned an injunction which would ban asylum seekers from being housed at an Essex hotel could spark further protests if they decide not to overturn it on Friday.
The Home Office and Somani Hotels, which owns The Bell Hotel in Epping, are seeking to challenge a High Court ruling that will stop 138 asylum seekers from being housed there beyond 12 September.
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 hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers.
The hotel has become 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.
At the end of Thursday’s hearing about whether to overturn the temporary injunction, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb at the Court of Appeal, 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.”
Cost of weight-loss drug Mounjaro to be discounted in UK pharmacies when price hike comes into force, Sky News learns
UK summons Russian ambassador after British Council building hit in Kyiv
Former Met Police volunteer guilty of raping and sexually assaulting a child
The Home Office is also seeking to challenge Mr Justice Eyre’s decision not to let it intervene in the case, while the council opposes the appeal bids.
Since the High Court judge’s ruling last week, other councils, including Labour-run authorities, have publicly announced their intention to seek legal advice over whether they could achieve similar injunctions for hotels in their areas.
In written submissions for the hearing on Thursday, Edward Brown KC, for the Home Office, said ending the use of hotels to accommodate asylum seekers “requires a structured response”, and that individual injunction bids “ignore the obvious consequence that closure of one site means that capacity then needs to be identified elsewhere”.
Analysis: Epping protests are just the latest flashpoint of frustration
He said: “The 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.
“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.”
It comes as Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, the asylum seeker charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl, has been on trial this week after denying the alleged offence.
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.
Follow our channel and never miss an update.
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 19 August, Mr Justice Eyre stated that the council had not “definitively established” that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, but that the company had “sidestepped public scrutiny and explanation” 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 “overlooked” the “hardship” that would be caused to asylum seekers if they were required to move.
He continued 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 has opposed 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.
