𝓤𝓷𝓲𝓽𝓮𝓭 𝓝𝓮𝔀𝓼

Judges have thrown a lifeline to Sir Keir Starmer by ruling that a temporary injunction preventing asylum seekers being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping will be overturned. The Home Office and Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, have successfully challenged a High Court ruling that would force 138 asylum seekers at the hotel to be removed by September 12.

But the ruling sparked an immediate warning that the battle against asylum hotels would continue. Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: “This is not a free pass for asylum hotels. Councils can and should still act to close hotels. If they don’t, residents will rightly ask, on whose side are they?” He vowed that his team and lawyers backing the closure of asylum hotels “will continue to provide legal assistance to help protect communities.”

And Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch urged Tory councils to continue launching legal battles against asylum hotels in their areas. She said: “This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end. I say to Conservative councils seeking similar injunctions against asylum hotels – KEEP GOING!”

Today’s Court of Appeal ruling means that asylum seekers are likely to stay at the hotel, at least for now, and other local authorities are less likely to press ahead with attempts to get their own injunctions – a move which threatened to throw the Government’s asylum policy into chaos. Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, handed down a judgment this afternoon.

The Court of Appeal today issued its ruling following an earlier High Court decision last week, which granted Epping Forest District Council (EFDC) an interim injunction demanding the removal of asylum seekers. The council had accused Somani Hotels of breaching planning rules by using the Bell as accommodation for asylum seekers.

Reading a summary of the ruling today, Lord Justice Bean said the High Court decision demanding the removal of asylum seekers was flawed. He said: “We conclude that the judge made a number of errors of principle, which undermine his decision.”

He said the High Court had granted the injunction partly to reduce the risk of protests at the hotel – but this could actually increase the risk of disorder in the future, said Lord Justice Bean.

In another win for the Home Office, Lord Justice Bean also said he was granting the Home Secretary permission to appeal against a ruling that she could not be a party in a future court hearing on the issue.

In a victory for Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, he said the Home Office can intervene in the case. Reading a summary of the decision, Lord Justice Bean said the Home Office had a “constitutional role relating to public safety” and was affected by the issues.

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

Ms Badenoch said: “Local communities should not pay the price for Labour’s total failure on illegal immigration.

Keir Starmer has shown that he puts the rights of illegal immigrants above the rights of British people who just want to feel safe in their towns and communities.

This ruling is a setback, but it is not the end. I say to Conservative councils seeking similar injunctions against asylum hotels – KEEP GOING! Every case has different circumstances, and I know good Conservative councils will keep fighting for residents, so we will keep working with them every step of the way.

We will be writing to all Conservative councillors with further advice following this judgment and setting out our open offer to work with councils and communities to take action. We will also continue to work closely with Epping Council as they consider their next steps.”

In written submissions for Thursday’s appeal 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,”

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.

But Epping Forest District Council 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.

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.

Speaking this morning before the court’s announcement, Mr Kinnock told Sky News: “It’s not a question of if we close the hotels, it’s a question of when and how we close the hotels, and what we don’t want to have is a disorderly discharge from every hotel in the country, which would actually have far worse consequences than what we currently have, in terms of the impact that would have on asylum seekers potentially living destitute in the streets.

“And I don’t think any one of the communities that are campaigning on this hotels issue want to see that.”

Essex Police said there was a peaceful demonstration outside the hotel from around 5pm on Thursday, with a group marching to a local school before a section returned to the original protest site.

An order was in place giving officers the power to direct people to remove face coverings or face arrest, while there was also a designated area for the protest.

“A small section of the group which had returned to the designated site walked out of the area. Officers engaged with them and directed them to return to the designated protest area which they did shortly after,” the force said.

“The protest activity had concluded by around 8.30pm.”

Essex Police denied claims protesters tried to “storm the hotel”, saying this did not accurately reflect what took place.