Court of Appeal overturns ‘asylum hotel’ injunction: Legal comment

The Court of Appeal has overturned a temporary ban on using an Essex hotel to accommodate asylum seekers. 

This judgment quashes the decision by the High Court on 19 August to grant the interim injunction to Epping Forest District Council, which prevented the owners of the Bell Hotel from using the property for this purpose.  

Following the judgment today (29 August), Victoria Searle, principal associate in the government team at Browne Jacobson, said: “The Court of Appeal has today upheld appeals by the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the owner of the Bell Hotel in Essex in the “Asylum Hotels” case.  

“The Court of Appeal has set aside the interim injunction that was granted by Justice Eyre on 19 August 2025, restraining the use of the Bell Hotel to accommodate asylum seekers temporarily while the substantive proceedings were determined. 

“The issue of the temporary injunction was determined on the principles that apply to interim relief decisions, only. In particular, the Court considered whether the judge had erred in some material respect when granting the injunction and, if he had, whether the balance of convenience favoured a temporary pause on the use of the Bell Hotel to accommodate asylum seekers. The Court of Appeal concluded that it did not.  

“The Court of Appeal expressed concern that Justice Eyre’s decision, at first instance, could incentivise further protests, and encourage litigation aimed at closing asylum hotels in a disorderly manner. The court recognised that local residents’ fear of crime was a material consideration but believed this was outweighed by other matters of significant public interest. 

“The judgment reaffirms the fact that these sorts of determinations are highly fact-specific, and will turn on the particular circumstances in each case, as Justice Eyre cautioned at first instance.  

“As a result, there is no general rule applicable in all circumstances regarding the use of so-called asylum hotels. 

“The Court of Appeal’s judgment today only considered whether the interim injunction ought to be maintained until the trial in late October. The substantive issue of whether a hotel blocked-booked by the Home Office to house asylum seekers is a materially different use, in planning terms, from a hotel remains to be determined then.  

“The matter will now be returned to the High Court, where it will be heard in late October with judgment expected soon thereafter.  

“The Court of Appeal’s judgment reaffirms our view that local authorities should exercise caution and consider the wider implications of pursuing similar action, including for their own use of hotels, and bed and breakfast accommodation, to house the vulnerable – including the homeless and those without recourse to public funds on account of their immigration status. 

“The latest Home Office figures show there are more than 32,000 asylum seekers living in hotels, while Shelter's research revealed 326,000 homeless people living in temporary housing as of December 2024.  

“With the UK facing a severe social housing shortage and local authorities experiencing unprecedented pressure on their homelessness services, a long-term and sustainable solution to these challenges is required nationally. This will inevitably require close co-operation between all branches of government. 

“Local authorities and central government alike are looking for solutions to the problem of accommodating vulnerable people in costly and potentially unsuitable hotel accommodation. 

“We are seeing increased innovation in this area, and are working with many local authorities to grow their long-term supply of suitable housing, thereby reducing their own use of costly, nightly-let hotel and bed and breakfast accommodation.”