A life interest in Zack’s favour would be sufficient to satisfy the equity, even if he ultimately had the expectation that he would have proprietorship of the land transferred to him

Zack has acted unconscionably by agreeing to forego payment and then instinctively asserting possession over land belonging to another without any contract for sale being entered into. As such, even if an equity is established in his favour, the court could justifiably give minimum relief to Zack

Nothing short of transfer of the land to Zack will be appropriate – he was promised this and, as such, the court’s only option would be to order the transfer of the land to Zack

Zack’s detrimental reliance was established in the work he began to undertake on the land in question. As such, the court will order Olivia and Rob to pay expenses back to Zack and then allow them to assert possession

The outcome would be in line with the decision in Chaudhary v Yavuz, where it was deemed that Mr Chaudhary’s interest was not capable of binding a third party without registration, even though the interest would have bound the original assuring party. This follows the provision within section 116 of the Land Registration Act 2002

The advice would remain consistent between scenarios. Section 116 of the Land Registration Act 2002 establishes that unregistered interests are capable of binding successors in title. In this instance, it would be on the basis of Zack exercising an interest (the equity by estoppel) in actual occupation (schedule 3 paragraph 2 of the Land Registration Act 2002)

Unfortunately, the arrangement would not be enforceable against Warren, because it was entirely informal, and property rights must be formalised by registration if they are to bind subsequent purchasers

The advice would remain consistent between scenarios; there has still been an assurance made and detrimental reliance upon that assurance, so the right has arisen by estoppel. An interest arising by estoppel is a property interest that will always bind

Any assurance given in either scenario would have to be expressly given, so there is no difference in outcome between the two scenarios

The acquiescence of Angel to Brianna’s building work in this scenario would amount to an assurance that the driveway could continued to be used by Brianna, creating a much more obvious causal connection between assurance and detrimental reliance

Brianna could claim a right arising by estoppel in either scenario – the building work followed the initial permission to use the drive in 1993, so there was evidently detrimental reliance on the basis of an assurance given

Any act done as a ‘good neighbour’ could never amount to an assurance or representation in any situation

The interest would be enforceable. Angel’s behaviour capable of being an easement, the enforceability of Brianna’s use of the driveway would be governed by Schedule 3 paragraph 3 of the Land Registration Act 2002. This provides that easements will bind future purchasers if the use would be obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land

The conduct in question does not amount to occupation but mere use. As such, Angel would not be able to enforce their interest against Clyde absent entry of a notice on the register of the burdened land

The interest would be enforceable against Clyde, but not under schedule 3 paragraph 3 – only legal easements are capable of overriding registered dispositions. Instead, it would be binding under Schedule 3 paragraph 2, as any interest holder exercising their right in actual occupation would have an enforceable interest, so long as the right is obvious on a reasonably careful inspection of the land at the time of purchase

The difference in date doesn’t matter; the acquiescence of Angel to Brianna’s building work creates the causal relationship between assurance and detrimental reliance, creating a property interest in Brianna’s favour that would be enforceable against Clyde by default

At this stage, the purchaser will enjoy an equitable interest in the land subject to the sale

By default, the current standard conditions for sale place the insurable risk on the seller, on the basis of their continued proprietorship until completion of the transfer

The buyer can seek the remedy of specific performance if the seller refuses to undertake their obligations under the contract and the seller is entitled to retain the buyer’s deposit and pursue costs if the buyer refuses to undertake their obligations under the contract

The seller holds the property on trust for the purchaser and, as such, retains a responsibility not to damage the property or prejudice the interest of the buyer