Updates 22 August, 23 August 2025, 31st August 2025. 11 November 2025
It is reported in the press that the High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of Epping Forest District Council to prevent migrants being accommodated at The Bell Hotel in Epping. The hotel is owned by Somani Hotels Ltd - (a private limited company). The Council wished the hotel to be cleared of its occupants within 14 days but the High Court extended the time limit to 12 September.
The Council claims that Somani Hotels are in breach of planning "change of use" rules because the site is not being used for its intended purpose as a hotel. However that may be, the use of the hotel to house immigrants has attracted protest following the arrest for alleged sexual offences of two men staying there.
Sky News 19 August 2025 - Asylum seekers face being removed from Epping hotel after council granted High Court injunction.
Law
The legal system
refers to the INJUNCTION as an equitable remedy because, historically, the jurisdiction developed in the Court of Chancery where the branch of law known as EQUITY had developed. Until the Judicature Acts 1873-75, courts of common law and courts of equity were separate. The Acts created the modern High Court of Justice and merged the administration of common law and equity.Today, the use of injunctions is governed by considerable case law and by Civil Procedure Rules (in particular, Part 25).
A useful article on Injunctions has been published by Becket Chambers - see HERE. This notes that -
'Injunctions can be sought on either an interim (sought before or during the proceedings for a specific period or until the final hearing is concluded) or a final (sought at the final hearing and lasting until a specified date, or permanently) basis.
The main distinction between the two is that a higher burden of proof is placed on the applicant seeking a final injunction, that of “the balance of probabilities” versus the applicant simply having to establish a “real prospect of success” in interim applications.'
In the case of interim injunctions, the general starting point for the court in hearing an application is whether granting an injunction would be “just and convenient” (Senior Courts Act 1981 section 37).
Comment
Although this interim injunction was granted in favour of a local council and is against a private company, it is likely that the government will seek to become involved because, at the the present time, hotels are a major source of accommodation for migrants.
The use of hotels for migrants has been (and remains) a government initiative and a considerable number of hotels have benefited financially. The Labour government plans to cease using hotels for migrants by the end of the present Parliament - (currently 2029). Already, some migrants are being housed elsewhere in, for example, Houses of Multiple Occupancy (HMOs).
Whether the court grants an injunction is obviously specific to the details of the individual application. I have seen some media comment that the High Court has created a precedent. I do not think that is correct.
A precedent is a decision on a point of law. Very basically, the decisions on the law of the Supreme Court of the UK are binding on all courts below. Similarly, decisions on the law of the Court of Appeal are binding on all courts below that level.
The case will be one to watch over the near future. I will post any updates below.
Update 22 August 2025
The court's judgment has been published - Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB)
On Bailii - Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels Ltd
Update 23 August 2025
As expected (above), it is reported that the government is seeking to become involved in the case - BBC News 22 August 2025
Update 31 August 2025
The Court of Appeal published a SUMMARY of its decision. The outcome is that the interim injunction of 19 August 2025 was set aside.
UK Human Rights Blog - Court of Appeal overturns Epping Asylum Hotel Injunction.
The article notes that - Despite the political furore the injunction caused, the case at root is not (in strictly legal terms) a case about human rights law at all: it is about planning law and injunctions: whether the use of the hotel to house asylum seekers was “use as a hotel”, and if not whether an injunction should be granted on an interim basis (i.e. until a full hearing can determine the issue for good). Nor, as the court was at pains to point out, was it about “the merits of Government policy in relation to the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers, in hotels or otherwise."
Update 11 November 2025
Epping Forest District Council v Somani Hotels [2025] EWHC 2937 (KB) - judgment of Mould J
Mr Justice Mould applied the principles endorsed by the House of Lords in South Bucks
District Council v Porter [2003] 2 AC 558 [206].
The judge concluded that an injunction was not an appropriate means of enforcing planning control in the circumstances of this case. The judge also declined to make the declarations sought by the Council. He concluded that to do so would not be appropriate, given that it remains open to the Council now to consider taking more conventional methods of enforcement action, such as the issue of an enforcement notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment