Appeals court overturns injunction that blocked asylum seekers from Epping hotel
A temporary injunction that would have blocked asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Essex has been overturned at the Court of Appeal.
The Home Office and Somani Hotels, which owns the Bell Hotel in Epping, have successfully challenged a High Court ruling. Today’s hearing saw both parties win the right to appeal, before also winning the appeals themselves.
Lord Justice Bean, sitting with Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb, quashed an earlier injunction granted to Epping Forest District Council, saying: “We allow the appeals and we set aside the injunction imposed on 19 August 2025.”
This means asylum seekers will stay in the accommodation in Essex past 12 September. There are currently 138 asylum seekers being housed at the hotel.
Lord Justice Bean delivering the ruling. Pic: PA
Last week, the initial court ruling centred on the change in use of the premises without consent from the local authority.
But after the Home Office argued its case – which involved stating it had the right to appeal – judges have backed the government’s side.
The decision avoids a precedent for other councils to appeal against asylum hotels in their areas.
Council ‘will continue the fight’
A councillor for Epping said the “battle is not over” after the Court of Appeal ruling and vowed the council would “continue the fight”.
Councillor Ken Williamson. Pic: PA
Speaking outside the London court, Ken Williamson, said: “We are deeply disappointed by the outcome of today’s hearing.
“The concern and motivation of Epping Forest District Council throughout has been the wellbeing of our local residents, where we had clarity and resolution, we now have doubt and confusion.”
The council could still be granted an injunction following a full hearing of the legal claim, which is due to be heard in October.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Reform UK’s deputy leader Richard Tice: Epping residents should feel ‘angry and frustrated’
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage also criticised the ruling, claiming that “illegal migrants have more rights than the British people under (Keir) Starmer”.
Tory leader Kemi Badenoch echoed this in her own statement, saying: “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.”
She also urged Conservative councillors seeking similar injunctions against asylum hotels to “keep going” despite the ruling.
Focal point of protests
Epping Forest District Council had asked for the injunction after the Bell Hotel became the focal point of several protests and counter-protests. It claimed its owner, Somani Hotels, had breached planning rules.
Lord Justice Stephen Eyre, who gave the original High Court decision, had said that while the council had not “definitively established” that the company had breached planning rules, “the strength of the claimant’s case is such that it weighs in favour” of granting the injunction.
Anti-migration protesters in Epping in July
Regular protests have been held outside the Bell Hotel since an asylum seeker housed there was accused of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl in July.
Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, denies two counts of sexual assault, one count of attempted sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity, and one count of harassment without violence.
His trial has been taking place this week and verdicts are expected at Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court on 4 September.
A view of an England flag outside the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, after a temporary injunction that would have blocked asylum seekers from being housed at the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, was overturned at the Court of Appeal. Picture date: Friday A
After the Court of Appeal ruling, a small number of protesters gathered outside the Bell Hotel carrying England and Union flags, with police officers guarding the entrance to the hotel, which is gated off with metal fencing.
An England flag has been attached to a drainpipe outside the hotel, while England flags have also been painted onto signs and a speed camera outside the hotel.
The UK has floated a new tax framework that eases the burden on decentralized finance (DeFi) users, with deferred capital gains taxes on crypto lending and liquidity pool users until the underlying token is sold, which the local industry has welcomed.
HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) proposed on Wednesday a “no gain, no loss” approach to DeFi that would cover lending out a token and receiving the same type back, borrowing arrangements and moving tokens into a liquidity pool.
Taxable gains or losses would be calculated when liquidity tokens are redeemed, based on the number of tokens a user receives back compared to the number they originally contributed, according to the proposal.
Currently, when a user deposits funds into a protocol, regardless of the reason, the move may be subject to capital gains tax. In the UK, capital gains tax rates can vary between 18% and 32%, depending on the action.
Tax framework a ‘positive signal’ for UK crypto regulation
Sian Morton, marketing lead at the crosschain payments system Relay protocol, said HMRC’s no gain, no loss approach is a “meaningful step forward for UK DeFi users who borrow stablecoins against their crypto collateral, and moves tax treatment closer to the actual economic reality of these interactions.”
“A positive signal for the UK’s evolving stance on crypto regulation,” she added.
Maria Riivari, a lawyer at the DeFi platform Aave, said the change “would bring clarity that DeFi transactions do not trigger tax until you truly sell your tokens.”
“Other countries facing similar questions may want to take note of HMRC’s approach and the depth of research and consideration behind it,” she added.
Aave CEO Stani Kulechov said the proposal was “a major win for UK DeFi users who want to borrow stablecoins against their crypto collateral.”
Related: Switzerland delays crypto tax info sharing until 2027
DeFi tax overhaul not set in stone yet
However, the proposal is not a done deal yet. HMRC said it’s continuing to engage with relevant stakeholders “to assess the merits of this potential approach, and the case for making legislative change to the rules governing the taxation of crypto asset loans and liquidity pools.”
“In particular, to ensure that it would cover the range of transactions that can take place under these arrangements and would be viable for individuals to comply with,” the agency added.
In the initial consultation, 32 formal written responses were submitted by individuals, businesses, tax professionals and representative bodies, which included crypto exchange Binance, venture capital firm a16z Capital Management and self-regulatory trade association Crypto UK.
Magazine: Harris’ unrealized gains tax could ‘tank markets’: Nansen’s Alex Svanevik, X Hall of Flame
Politics
Budget 2025: Reeves urged to ‘make the case’ for income tax freeze – as PM hits out at defenders of ‘failed’ policy
Rachel Reeves needs to “make the case” to voters that extending the freeze on personal income thresholds was the “fairest” way to increase taxes, Baroness Harriet Harman has said.
Speaking to Sky News political editor Beth Rigby on the Electoral Dysfunction podcast, the Labour peer said the chancellor needed to explain that her decision would “protect people’s cost of living if they’re on low incomes”.
In her budget on Wednesday, Ms Reeves extended the freeze on income tax thresholds – introduced by the Conservatives in 2021 and due to expire in 2028 – by three years.
The move – described by critics as a “stealth tax” – is estimated to raise £8bn for the exchequer in 2029-2030 by dragging some 1.7 million people into a higher tax band as their pay goes up.
Rachel Reeves, pictured the day after delivering the budget. Pic: PA
The chancellor previously said she would not freeze thresholds as it would “hurt working people” – prompting accusations she has broken the trust of voters.
During the general election campaign, Labour promised not to increase VAT, national insurance or income tax rates.
Sir Keir Starmer has insisted there’s been no manifesto breach, but acknowledged people were being asked to “contribute” to protect public services.
He has also launched a staunch defence of the government’s decision to scrap the two-child benefit cap, with its estimated cost of around £3bn by the end of this parliament.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Prime minister defends budget
‘A moral failure’
The prime minister condemned the Conservative policy as a “failed social experiment” and said those who defend it stand for “a moral failure and an economic disaster”.
“The record highs of child poverty in this country aren’t just numbers on a spreadsheet – they mean millions of children are going to bed hungry, falling behind at school, and growing up believing that a better future is out of reach despite their parents doing everything right,” he said.
The two-child limit restricts child tax credit and universal credit to the first two children in most households.
The government believes lifting the limit will pull 450,000 children out of poverty, which it argues will ultimately help reduce costs by preventing knock-on issues like dependency on welfare – and help people find jobs.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Budget winners and losers
Speaking to Rigby, Baroness Harman said Ms Reeves now needed to convince “the woman on the doorstep” of why she’s raised taxes in the way that she has.
“I think Rachel really answered it very, very clearly when she said, ‘well, actually, we haven’t broken the manifesto because the manifesto was about rates’.
“And you remember there was a big kerfuffle before the budget about whether they would increase the rate of income tax or the rate of national insurance, and they backed off that because that would have been a breach of the manifesto.
“But she has had to increase the tax take, and she’s done it by increasing by freezing the thresholds, which she says she didn’t want to do. But she’s tried to do it with the fairest possible way, with counterbalancing support for people on low incomes.”
Read more:
Labour’s credibility might not be recoverable
Budget 2025 is a big risk for Labour’s election plans
She added: “And that is the argument that’s now got to be had with the public. The Labour members of parliament are happy about it. The markets essentially are happy about it. But she needs to make the case, and everybody in the government is going to need to make the case about it.
“This was a difficult thing to do, but it’s been done in the fairest possible way, and it’s for the good, because it will protect people’s cost of living if they’re on low incomes.”
-
Sports2 years agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports3 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Sports3 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment3 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment1 year agoHere are the best electric bikes you can buy at every price level in October 2024