[2025] EWCA Civ 1134

It will be clear from the history outlined above that the Council and the Home Office had been in active discussions about the use of the Hotel for asylum seekers from the beginning of 2025; on 17 March 2025, the Council had sent a letter to the Home Office objecting to the use of the hotel for asylum seekers (but not as it happens on planning grounds). It was apparent from the letter from Somani to the Council on 15 May that it was not proposing to submit a new planning application, having taken advice from the Home Office. Protests outside the Hotel began in July 2025 and were the “trigger”, as Mr Green described it, for the Council’s decision to issue proceedings which was taken by the Council on 5 August 2025. Yet, in spite of this, the Council took no steps to notify the SSHD of the planned application for an injunction until after it had been issued. Indeed, the SSHD only learned of the application when a representative of CTM informally notified someone in her department of its existence on 12 August 2025 (i.e., the day after its issue). A copy of the unsealed, draft application for the injunction was sent by CTM to the Home Office on that day.

The Home Office did not attend the hearing on 15 August 2025, nor was the SSHD represented; the witness statement filed on her behalf maintains that she was unable to find “specialist counsel” to represent her at that point. The Home Office sent an email to the court (albeit to a non-operational email account) on the afternoon of 15 August 2025 explaining their interest in the application, but this was not received or read by the judge until after the conclusion of the hearing.

As mentioned earlier at [35] a further email was sent on behalf of the SSHD at 12:34pm on 18 August 2025 indicating her intention to apply for party status. That application was finally sent to the court at 5:23pm on 18 August 2025. The application was supported, as the rules require, by a written statement of evidence; the author of the statement was Becca Jones, Director of Asylum Support in the Home Office. The statement of Ms Jones (on behalf of the SSHD) confirms that as at 31 March 2025, there were 103,684 accommodated asylum-seekers. She further confirmed that whilst the Government’s aim is to reduce the use of contingency accommodation such as hotels, hotel accommodation is currently said to be necessary at this stage in order to ensure that legal duty is met. Ms Jones added this:

“The availability of the [Bell Hotel] is … important in enabling the Secretary of State to meet her duty to accommodate future asylum seekers going forward, in circumstances where the pressure on available properties is significant and increasing. As outlined above, small boat arrivals January to July 2025 are c.50% higher than in 2024, and our accommodated asylum-seeking population is higher than in 2024. In this context, and at this time, the loss of 152 bedspaces is significant when considering the Home Office’s legal duty”.