The rights of migrants take precedence over those of residents in Epping, according to arguments by Home Office lawyers as they seek to overturn a temporary injunction allowing the closure of an asylum seeker hotel.

Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, began her appeal at the Court of Appeal today against a court decision preventing asylum seekers from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping.

Representing the Home Office, lawyers contended that the High Court judge made an error in not allowing Ms. Cooper to contest Epping Forest Council’s motion to shut the hotel.

Edward Brown KC, representing the Home Office, asserted that the hotel is part of essential national infrastructure and emphasized that providing housing to asylum seekers is in the national interest.

He told the court: ‘There is a national interest in ensuring vulnerable individuals, namely asylum seekers, are accommodated.’

Additionally, lawyers for the Home Secretary cautioned that the ruling might incite further anti-immigration demonstrations. Their written submissions suggested it could ‘serve as an impetus for more violent protests’.

Mr. Brown KC argued that the judge mistakenly ruled the case as a mere planning dispute and requested the Court of Appeal to overturn the interim injunction previously issued regarding the Bell Hotel case.

He told the court: ‘The judge erred in declining to allow the Secretary of State to participate in the proceedings, given her unique institutional competence and her statutory duty… Her rights were clearly affected and she ought to have been heard in the application.’

Mr Brown KC also said in written submissions that at the time of the High Court hearing on August 15, there were 138 asylum seekers at the Bell Hotel, lower than its total capacity of 152.

Last week, Mr Justice Eyre granted an interim injunction to Epping Forest District Council, stopping the owner of the Bell Hotel, Somani Hotels, from using the building to accommodate asylum seekers beyond September 12.

The Home Office and Somani Hotels are both now seeking to challenge Mr Justice Eyre’s ruling at the Court of Appeal, with the Home Secretary also seeking to appeal against the judge’s decision not to let her intervene in the case ahead of the original ruling.

In written submissions for its appeal bid, Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said the Court of Appeal should ‘exercise its discretion’ and quash the injunction to remove asylum seekers from the Bell Hotel.

He argued the ‘extremely high-profile nature of the issue’ created a ‘risk of a precedent being set as a number of other local authorities are reported to be considering similar injunctions to address the use of hotels for asylum seekers’.

Mr Riley-Smith said: ‘The issue of the use of hotels for asylum seekers is one of national importance and scrutiny given the role it plays in [the Home Office’s] approach to meeting their statutory duty.

‘The learned judge’s decision has received unprecedented media coverage and has been cited as setting a precedent for further injunctions to be sought by other local authorities.

‘In the context of this national attention, and the real risk of further injunctions being made shortly, the appeal raises an important question on which further argument and a decision of the appeal court would be to the public advantage.’

The Bell Hotel became the focal point of several protests and counter-protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a teenage girl last month. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied the offence and has been on trial this week.

Another man who was living at the site, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over alleged disorder outside the hotel.

If the Home Office and Somani Hotels’ appeal is successful it could see the temporary injunction removed and asylum seekers housed at the Bell Hotel beyond September 12.

But if the Court of Appeal decides Mr Justice Eyre did not make a legal error with his original ruling it threatens to collapse Labour’s asylum system, with further protests set to take place and councils across the country set to hit the Home Office with copycat litigation over hotels in their areas.

Today, lawyers for Epping Forest District Council – which brought the original case to close the Bell – accused the hotel’s owner of having ‘chanced its arm’ in breaching planning laws to accommodate asylum seekers.

Philip Coppel KC, representing the council, told the Court of Appeal in a written submission that Somani Hotels has ‘no realistic prospect’ of success in its appeal.

‘None of these grounds enjoys a realistic prospect of success,’ he said.

‘Nor is there compelling reason to grant permission to appeal in a case involving the well-established, uncontroversial principles of law to an issue of a broad evaluative judgement.’

Mr Coppel KC added: ‘Somani had decided to chance its arm. It knew [the council] considered the use of the hotel to accommodate asylum seekers gave rise to a material change of use, yet it did not submit an application of planning permission.’

The hearing, before Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies and Lord Justice Cobb at the Royal Courts of Justice, is expected to conclude later today.