Court of Appeal refuses Epping Forest permission to appeal to Supreme Court over asylum hotel interim injunction

In a statement the council said no reasons had been given by the Court of Appeal for the refusal, and that it was now open to it to apply to the Supreme Court itself.

The Court of Appeal set aside the interim injunction on Friday after concluding that Mr Justice Eyre had made a "number of errors of principle" that undermined his decision. The final trial in the Epping Forest case is set to take place in October.

The Court of Appeal's full written judgment, which was published on Monday (1 September), is available here.

Cllr Chris Whitbread, Leader of Epping Forest District Council, said: “We believe the Court of Appeal decision to overturn the interim injunction for the closure of the Bell Hotel was wrong. The Court of Appeal judges appear to have placed the Secretary of State’s duties towards asylum seekers above those of the council to uphold the planning system.

“It is the planning system that provides an orderly forum for local concerns about the use of land to be debated, decided and enforced, consistently with published policies. Overriding that system by forcing the council to accommodate the Secretary of State’s ‘wider interests’ weakens that system, and only serves to encourage disorderly means of expression. This is not the way of the council.”

He added: “We represent the interests of local residents. The implications for local democracy and good government are profound if the Home Secretary’s powers trump the statutory responsibilities of councils.

“However, this is not the end of the matter. We consider we have a strong case for a final injunction. The final injunction hearing is expected to be heard some time in early October. In the meantime, the council is keeping all our options open, including seeking permission from the Supreme Court to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal.”

Cllr Whitbread meanwhile issued a call for calm as schools return, asking protest organisers "to show restraint".

He said: “Let the council focus on fighting this case through the courts. We have already made a strong case, and we remain confident in our position as the legal process continues. Make your case to the Home Secretary in Westminster while the council argues for the full injunction at the High Court in October.”

Epping Forest has also issued background information “to clarify and correct a number of misapprehensions in connection with the planning history of the Bell Hotel.

Amongst other comments, the council described a statement by Lord Justice Bean in the Court of Appeal’s judgment that it had confirmed its agreement to a maximum of 138 residents for the hotel as “simply incorrect”.

The background information document says: “The council did not, in any capacity, agree to the use of the Bell Hotel for asylum seekers much less agree a number of asylum-seeking residents.”