Probably so as the animal was never initially designed to do the amount of 'paved road tasks' that are asked of a modern day four wheel drive.
I remember from early field days that the Land Rover was pushed primarily as a farm implement with the added sideline being the ability to take Mum into town on a Saturday morning.
It could happily run a circular saw, power a hay thresher, pull a mower, tow and power a hay baler or whatever machinery the farmer of the day owned. Remember back in those days not many civvies had the money to operate modern machinery on farms. Horses were still big time.
Nearly everything about the vehicle was implement minded, PTOs, winches, removable parts, off centre towing devices suitable for three point linkages etc., and the list goes on, so with that in mind I would assume (well aware of the danger of that word) that one of the design benchmarks would have been safe to use as a stationary power source. The other great workhorse of the day had only just beaten Rover to the market but not yet gained its present day cult following, that is the Fergy tractor. These two implements competed in a similar market.
Of course the question will always arise, was the transfer case designed this way on purpose, or was this the cheapest and easiest solution at the time and the so called advantages of a more stable hand braking system simply written in to the handbook to cover the fact.
The general history of the vehicle tells us that it was a copy of the wartime Jeep that was seeing widespread use on farms post war as general workhorses, so it only goes to follow that the farming requirements of the day would have had a fair influence in its development in England, just as the SMA had influence on its road-wise development out here. But all this is heresay. Perhaps Arthur Goddard can throw some light on the subject.
Regards
Glen