Engaged Couple Dispute Over Jewellery: RI v NG [2025] EWFC 9 (B)

The recent decision  in the Central Family Court provides a fascinating insight into disputes arising from broken engagements and the ownership of valuable property. The case, RI v NG, concerned an application under the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, as extended by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, for the return of jewellery worth nearly £68,000.

Background

RI (aged 59) and NG (aged 42) met in June 2023 and, according to RI, became engaged in early 2024, with a wedding planned for May. NG disputed this, claiming she never agreed to marry RI and that he was controlling and coercive. The engagement was allegedly called off in April 2024.

RI asserted that NG removed seven items of jewellery from his property without consent. These included an engagement ring, tennis bracelet, diamond earrings, necklaces, and other pieces intended as wedding gifts. NG admitted returning two items but denied knowledge of the others.

Legal Framework

The court relied on Section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, which allows determination of property disputes between engaged couples, and Section 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, which presumes an engagement ring is an absolute gift unless proven conditional on marriage.

Key Issues

1. Was there an engagement?
   The judge found compelling evidence of an engagement, including:
   • Purchase and wearing of an expensive diamond ring.
   • Instagram posts referring to RI as “future husband.”
   • Emails to Chelsea Old Town Hall confirming a wedding date.
   • NG’s introduction of RI as her fiancé to a broker.
   • Attendance at a meeting about a pre-nuptial agreement.
2. Did the jewellery exist and belong to RI?
   The court accepted RI’s evidence, supported by invoices and valuations, and rejected NG’s allegations of fabrication.
3. Has NG retained items that do not belong to her?
   On the balance of probabilities, the judge concluded NG removed and retained the jewellery.

Outcome

NG was ordered to return the jewellery within seven days of the final order or pay RI its value (£67,942). The judgment also hinted that NG may struggle to resist a costs order given the findings.

Why This Case Matters

This case underscores:

• The legal consequences of broken engagements.
• The importance of clear evidence in property disputes.
• How courts approach allegations of coercive behaviour when not pleaded or evidenced properly.

For practitioners, it’s a reminder to ensure proper directions if conduct is to be raised and to advise clients on the presumption regarding engagement rings.