• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Logo
  • Home
  • Our People
  • Our Services
    • Divorce & Finances when separating
    • Cohabitation contracts
    • Prenuptial Agreements
    • Disputes involving children
    • Arbitration
    • Wills, LPA & Probate
  • News & Views
  • Questions
  • For Clients
    • Book an appointment
    • Using LawConnect
    • Our service standards & complaints procedure
    • Reviews
  • Contact Us
  • 0800 083 6051
You are here: Home / News & Views / Bling and bother

News & Views · January 21, 2025

Bling and bother

 

A Tale of Love, Loss, and Litigation: The Engagement Jewellery Dispute in RI v NG

In a recent case before the Central Family Court, District Judge Ashworth presided over a fascinating dispute involving engagement jewellery, allegations of coercion, and the complexities of modern relationships. The case, RI v NG [2025] EWFC 9 (B), highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the return of gifts and the emotional turmoil that can accompany the end of a relationship.

The Background

The case revolves around Mr. RI, a 59-year-old man, and Ms. NG, a 42-year-old woman, who met in June 2023. According to Mr. RI, their relationship quickly blossomed into a whirlwind romance, leading to an engagement and plans for a wedding in May 2024. However, Ms. NG called off the wedding in April 2024, leading to a legal battle over the return of various items of jewellery that Mr. RI claimed were intended as wedding gifts.

The Legal Framework

The dispute was brought under the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, which allows the court to determine ownership of property between engaged parties who have terminated their agreement to marry. The court also considered the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, which presumes that an engagement ring is an absolute gift unless it can be proven that it was given on the condition it should be returned if the marriage did not take place.

The Evidence

During the hearing, both parties presented their versions of events. Mr. RI claimed that he had purchased several items of jewellery, including an engagement ring, a tennis bracelet, and other pieces, with a total value of £67,942. He asserted that these items were intended as wedding gifts and sought their return or a lump sum equivalent to their value.

Ms. NG, on the other hand, denied that the parties were ever engaged or that there was an impending wedding. She described Mr. RI as controlling and coercive, alleging that he planned the wedding without her consent. She admitted to receiving some jewellery but claimed that she had returned the items gifted to her and had no knowledge of the others.

The Court’s Findings

Judge Ashworth found Mr. RI to be a more credible witness than Ms. NG, noting inconsistencies in her evidence and a lack of plausible explanations for certain actions. The judge concluded that the parties were indeed engaged and that the jewellery in question had been purchased by Mr. RI with the intention of gifting it to Ms. NG upon their marriage.

The court determined that the engagement ring and other items were to be returned to Mr. RI, as the presumption of an absolute gift was rebutted by the fact that Ms. NG had called off the wedding. In the event that the items were not returned, Ms. NG was ordered to pay the value of the jewellery to Mr. RI.

Conclusion

The case of RI v NG serves as a poignant reminder of the legal and emotional complexities that can arise when relationships end. It underscores the importance of clear communication and mutual consent in engagements and the potential legal ramifications of disputes over gifts. As the court navigated through the allegations and evidence, it highlighted the delicate balance between personal relationships and legal obligations.

This case will undoubtedly be referenced in future disputes involving engagement gifts, providing valuable insights into how courts may approach similar situations. For those navigating the end of a relationship, it serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of understanding the legal implications of engagement and the potential for litigation when things go awry. An important feature has to be the value of the items in question. I think it would be rare that the value of the disputed items would be high enough to justify litigation and the legal costs that would be incurred.

 

Filed Under: News & Views Tagged With: engaged, engagement dispute, jewellery

Previous Post: « Essex Rugby
Next Post: Navigating Parental Responsibility: The Case of KL v BA »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Leasehold Reform Act 2024 – Major changes ahead
  • Karen Dovaston joins Worshipful Company of Arbitrators
  • Married or not?
  • Child arrangement orders and non-molestation orders
  • A Complex Family Dispute Unfolds in the Central Family Court

Footer

Review Solicitor

Contact Us

  • 112 The Broadway, Thorpe Bay, Essex, SS1 3HH
  • 0800 083 6051
  • [email protected]

Connect with Us

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Privacy Policy | Copyright © 2021 Dovaston Law is the trading name of Dovaston Law Limited.
Dovaston Law Limited is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number 816750 Company Number: 13221943 (Registered in England and Wales) | Registered Address: 457 Southchurch Road, Southend on Sea, SS1 2PH
Website Hosting : Lift Legal Marketing · Log in

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
SettingsAgree and close
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Home
  • Our People
  • Our Services
    • Divorce & Finances when separating
    • Cohabitation contracts
    • Prenuptial Agreements
    • Disputes involving children
    • Arbitration
    • Wills, LPA & Probate
  • News & Views
  • Questions
  • For Clients
    • Book an appointment
    • Using LawConnect
    • Our service standards & complaints procedure
    • Reviews
  • Contact Us
  • 0800 083 6051