Epping Forest to apply to Supreme Court for permission to appeal Court of Appeal ruling on asylum hotel interim injunction

The local authority said the decision was taken “following careful consideration of the Court of Appeal judgment” and in consultation with group leaders.

Epping Forest also said its legal representatives had this week returned to the High Court for directions on the hearing date for the full injunction, which has been set for 15 to 17 October.

The council also revealed at the same Directions Hearing, the Home Office had been unsuccessful in its applications for a six-week stay in the final injunction proceedings and a split hearing.

A spokesperson for Epping Forest District Council said: “We would like to thank the Court for expediting these matters. It is in no one’s interest to delay the legal process. The sooner we get to a full resolution the better.”

The Home Office declined to comment on Epping Forest’s planned application to the Supreme Court on the basis that legal proceedings were ongoing.

In a response to the hand down of the Court of Appeal ruling, Dame Angela Eagle, Minister for Border Security and Asylum said: "We inherited a chaotic asylum accommodation system costing billions. This government will close all hotels by the end of this Parliament and we appealed this judgment so hotels like the Bell can be exited in a controlled and orderly way that avoids the chaos of recent years that saw 400 hotels open at a cost of £9m a day.”

Epping Forest’s application to the Supreme Court came after the Court of Appeal refused it permission to appeal.

The council said no reasons had been given for the refusal.

Cllr Chris Whitbread, Leader of Epping Forest District Council, said in response that “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”.

The Court of Appeal set aside the interim injunction on Friday last week after concluding that Mr Justice Eyre had made a "number of errors of principle" that undermined his decision. 

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.”