For fifty years D had left vehicles on P’s land and P sought to restrain him from doing so. D claimed prescriptive easement. The court denied an easement since the right exercised and claimed was too extensive to constitute an easement in law, as it amounted practically to a claim to the whole beneficial use of the land over which it had been exercised.
Upjohn J: Because of the extent of the supposed right (right to leave possessions there for an indeterminate period anywhere on the land), it cannot come within easement. In reality, beneficial use/joint use is claimed, and D would have to argue for possession through adverse possession if he seeks to establish a right of this magnitude. The right claimed was described as having a problem of “vagueness”.