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