Southwark London Borough Council v Williams and Another [1971] Ch 734
The availability of the defence of necessity for squatters in desperate need of housing.
Facts
The defendants were in need of housing, both having been forced to leave their current lodgings. The defendants sought the assistance of a squatters’ association which helped them gain orderly entry into local authority owned houses. The houses in question belonged to a group of hundreds of houses that were left vacant by the local authority whilst awaiting development in order to provide housing for those on the authority’s housing list. At first instance an order for possession was made by the trial judge. The defendants appealed.
Issues
The Court of Appeal was required to decide whether the families were entitled to remain within the properties they were occupying either because (1) the local authority was in breach of its duty under National Assistance Act 1948, s 21 and (2) whether the defence of necessity was available to the possession order.
Decision/Outcome
It was held that (1) the local authority was in breach of its duty under section 21 of the 1948 Act. However, the Act contained specific remedies for beach, namely approaching the Minister with regards to enforcing the duty (s. 36). There was no private law remedy available to the defendants. (2) The defendants could not rely on the defence of necessity to their trespass of the properties. Even though authority existed supporting the view that in extreme circumstances the preservation of life allows encroachment onto private property (Mouse’s Case (1609) 12 Co Rep 63), the facts for the defendants did not amount to extreme circumstances and furthermore, even if they were, it could not be suggested that these circumstances were continuing to the extent that the defendants should be allowed to remain living in the properties indefinitely. The appeal was dismissed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Southwark London Borough Council v Williams [1971] Ch 734. The legal principles described — including the Court of Appeal’s rejection of the necessity defence in the context of squatting, and the absence of a private law remedy for breach of the National Assistance Act 1948 — remain good law.
Readers should note that the National Assistance Act 1948 has been substantially superseded in this area. The duty to provide accommodation for those in need is now primarily governed by the Care Act 2014 (for adults with care and social care needs) and the Housing Act 1996 (as amended) for homeless persons generally. However, these statutory changes do not affect the legal principles for which this case is cited, namely the narrow scope of the necessity defence in tort and the unavailability of private law remedies for breach of statutory duty where Parliament has provided an alternative enforcement mechanism. The case continues to be cited as a leading authority on those points and is regularly referenced in tort law and land law teaching materials.
