Epping Migrant Hotel Will Remain Open as Home Office Wins High Court Battle

A hotel at the centre of anti-immigration protests will be able to continue housing asylum seekers after judges overturned a decision that would have seen it close within a fortnight.

In a major hearing today, the Court of Appeal set aside an injunction granted earlier this month which would have stopped 138 asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex beyond September 12.

The judges also ruled that the Home Office could intervene in the case, in a significant victory for the Government.

Lawyers for Home Secretary Yvette Cooper had argued that shutting the hotel would set a ‘dangerous precedent’ that would have encouraged similar litigation by other councils.

Following the ruling, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: ‘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.’

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage echoed this sentiment, writing on X: ‘Illegal migrants have more rights than the people of Essex. Reform UK will put an end to this.’

Last week, the High Court ruled that all 138 asylum seekers at the hotel should be temporarily removed following legal action brought by Epping Forest District Council.

Yesterday the Home Office and owners of The Bell asked the Court of Appeal to reconsider the judgment.

Quashing the injunction, Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, said Mr Justice Eyre – who granted the interim injunction last week – ‘made a number of errors in principle, which undermine this decision’.

‘We grant permission to appeal, both to Somani and to (the Home Office)… We allow the appeals and we set aside the injunction imposed on 19 August 2025.’

The judges also ruled that the Home Office could intervene in the case, saying that Mr Justice Eyre made an ‘erroneous’ decision not to let the department be involved.

Reading a summary of their decision, Lord Justice Bean said the Home Office had a ‘constitutional role relating to public safety’ and was affected by the issues. A full trial of the council’s case against the hotel will be held in October.

He continued: ‘The judge’s approach ignores the obvious consequence that the closure of one site means capacity needs to be identified elsewhere in the system.’

He added that such an injunction ‘may incentivise’ other councils to take similar steps as EFDC.

He said: ‘The potential cumulative impact of such ad-hoc applications was a material consideration… that was not considered by the judge.’

The judge also said that the appeals were ‘not concerned with the merits of government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers in hotels or otherwise’.

Touching on local residents’ fear of crime, Lord Justice Bean said: ‘The Epping residents’ fear of crime was properly taken into account by the judge as a factor in favour of grant of an injunction. He described it as being of limited weight.’

He added: ‘We agree it is relevant, but in our view, it is clearly outweighed… by the undesirability of incentivising protests, by the desirability in the interests of justice of preserving status quo for the relatively brief period leading up to the forthcoming trial and by the range of public interest factors which we have discussed in our judgment.’

{snip}