An easement may result from prescription (i.e. long use) when an intruder demonstrates 20 years of „right“ use: without violence, secrecy and permission. The question was whether the right was used „without violence“ despite the signage: there was no doubt that parking on the controversial land was open and known and that no parking permit had been granted. The phrase „without force“ means more than its literal meaning. The person who asserted the right was not only able to demonstrate that he or she did not use force. Instead, they must show that their user was not controversial or that they were only allowed as a sign of protest. Where a landowner had clearly indicated his position on the use of the land by clearly visible signs, the unauthorized use could not be described as „de jure“. The signs alone were enough to challenge the parking of cars and other vehicles by the store and its suppliers and customers. It is useful that the court recognized that the landowner was not required to collect his protest by mail or through the courts, recognizing the social and financial costs. The Court of Appeal considered (following an earlier decision of the High Court) the application of Winterburn v Bennett  EWCA Civ 482. These were customers and suppliers of a local fish and chip shop who used the parking lot of the conserative club next door to park, although a clearly visible sign with the inscription „Private parking. Only for club guests.
By order of the Committee. After the tenant obstructed the parking lot of a new owner of the site, the fish and chips owner claimed to have acquired a prescription parking right. . . .