The C of A decision is certainly contrary to what was generally believed to be the case, but that is often the case with C of A decisions.
The case has no significance in relation to acquiring title by adverse possession. The acquisition of easements by prescription and the acquisition of land by adverse possession are two distinct things even if they achieve what looks like a similar outcome. With prescription there is a presumption of a grant. With adverse possession, title arises by the mere fact of possession (assuming of course that it is adverse and cannot be otherwise explained). After the requisite period, statute intervenes to deprive the ousted owner of his title either, in the case of unregistered land, by extinguishing his title, or, in the case of registered land, by transferring it to the adverse possessor. Despite what appears to be the contrary because these days close attention is paid to "examining title", that is looking at deeds or a copy of a land register, possession is still the basis of title. "Without force" does not come into it, because historically it was not unusual for landowners to be dispossessed by force of arms and the law sought to preserve the peace.