The eviction of the Occupy camp at the foot of St Paul's is likely to be postponed until next week, as some of England's most senior judges consider whether to hear an appeal which will decide its fate.

Three appeal court judges, including the master of the rolls, will reserve judgment until 22 February on whether to grant an appeal to the Occupy camp, whose lawyers argue that an initial court order permitting an eviction was "more draconian than was necessary".

The City of London authority has restated its commitment to waiting for all appeal proceedings to run their course before acting on the eviction order granted in January.

During the packed appeal hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice on Monday, John Cooper QC, representing Occupy members, said the initial order made by Mr Justice Lindblom could have been "less intrusive" in order to allow protesters to congregate and demonstrate as part of their human rights.

Cooper told Lord Neuberger, sitting with Lord Justice Burnton and Lord Justice McFarlane, that the compelling reason why the appeal judges should interfere was because "the steps taken in the court below were more extreme and more draconian than was necessary".

While arguing that the hearing had been fair, Cooper also said that the court had rubber-stamped the wishes of the City of London: "In the context of the fair hearing, the judge simply accepted what the City wanted and rubber-stamped it.

"We submit this should not have been a rubber-stamping exercise, but a rigorous consideration of the alternatives," he said.

Cooper argued that the Occupy activists, who have had their nylon tents pitched beside the London Stock Exchange for almost four months, should be allowed to remain for up to 23 hours a day even without the tents: "We are asking you to consider whether the judge made the wrong decision and it interferes with the rights of those we represent."

After a five-day hearing in December, Mr Justice Lindblom granted the City of London Corporation possession of the site, ruling: "Withholding relief at this stage would plainly be wrong. The freedoms and rights of others, the interests of public health and public safety, and the prevention of disorder and crime, and the need to protect the environment of this part of the City of London, all demand the remedy which the court's orders will bring."

In written submissions, David Forsdick, representing the City of London Corporation, insisted the appeal should be dismissed: "All the necessary ingredients of a sound claim for possession are present in this case.

"There does not appear to be any challenge to the judge's findings of fact on the extent and nature of the obstruction and consequent public nuisance caused," he argued.

Camp member Naomi Colvin said: "Very important points of law have been raised today and it is only right and appropriate that their lordships take the time to hear them in full. It reflects the seriousness with which Occupy London's legal representations have been treated."