At this time of year, many couples are celebrating their relationships, reminiscing about proposals, or even planning their own. But for some, what starts as a romantic promise can lead to complicated questions, particularly when a relationship ends before it reaches the aisle.
In RI v NG [2025] EWFC 9 (B), the Family Court considered exactly that. The couple’s engagement in February 2024 began with excitement, flowers and a diamond ring. But when the relationship ended, the court was asked to decide not only whether there was an engagement, but also what should happen to the ring and other valuable pieces of jewellery.
This case provides insight into the law on engagement rings, gifts and property when relationships end before marriage.
A romance that didn’t reach the altar
RI (59) and NG (42) met in June 2023. Their relationship progressed quickly and according to RI, the couple became engaged in early 2024, with a wedding scheduled for May that year. As part of the engagement, he bought a highvalue diamond ring for NG along with several other pieces of jewellery intended as wedding gifts, together worth around £68,000.
Two weeks before the ceremony, NG called off the wedding. Soon after, RI discovered that the pieces of the jewellery intended to be wedding gifts were missing from his home. He claimed NG had removed them without his consent. NG denied this. She said they were never engaged, she had already returned two items and that any other items either belonged to her or did not exist.
The court determined three issues:
- Was there an engagement?
- Did the disputed jewellery exist and if so, who owned it?
- Had NG taken and kept items that belonged to RI?
Was there an engagement?
NG denied she ever agreed to marry RI, describing him as controlling and claiming he planned the wedding independently. However, the evidence seemed to contradict this.
The judge considered:
- Photographs of NG wearing the ring,
- Social media posts referring to RI as her future husband,
- Communication with Chelsea Old Town Hall about a wedding date,
- Her introduction of RI as her fiancé to an insurance broker,
- The couple (unusually together) attending a meeting about a prenuptial agreement.
Taken together, the evidence was compelling and the court found that the couple had been engaged.
The law on engagement rings: A gift or conditional on marriage?
Under Section 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, an engagement ring is presumed to be an absolute gift. This means that the recipient keeps it if the relationship ends.
However, this presumption can be overridden if it is shown the ring was given on the condition it would be returned if the marriage did not take place.
In this case, the court accepted that the expensive ring was given as part of a genuine engagement and on the understanding it would be returned if the wedding did not go ahead. As NG had been the one to end the engagement, she must return it.
The other jewellery
RI claimed that seven pieces of jewellery, including bracelets, necklaces and earrings were removed from his property. RI produced invoices and valuations to show they existed and were purchased by him as future wedding gifts.
NG said she had no knowledge of several items, which the court did not accept. Supported by documentation, RI’s evidence was preferred.
The judge concluded NG removed and retained the items without permission. She was ordered to return all the jewellery within seven days or, failing that, pay their full value.
Revival of an old statute
The application was brought under Section 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882, which gives the court the ability to determine property disputes between couples whose engagement has ended before marriage. Although this legislation dates to the Victorian era, RI v NG highlights its continued importance.
The case also demonstrates the importance of how evidence, from receipts to social media posts, can shape the outcome where personal property ownership is disputed.
What this case means
RI v NG is a reminder of a few important points:
- Engagements carry legal consequences: an engagement ring is not always ‘yours to keep’ and the circumstances surrounding the gifting of the ring are important.
- Documentation matters: invoices, valuations, photos and messages all played a role in the outcome.
- The law can intervene before a wedding takes place: even without a marriage, the court can resolve disputes about property between former fiancés.
A thought this season
In a month often associated with proposals and promises, RI v NG is a reminder that relationships and the gifts exchanged within them can have legal implications if engagements don’t go to plan.
If you have questions about getting engaged, pre-nuptial agreements, relationship breakdowns or any other aspect of family law, our specialist team of experts at Moore Barlow is here to help with clear, compassionate advice.
