DJ Ashworth.

Background

The parties agreed to marry in February 2024 and the wedding was scheduled to take place on 15 May 2024, but was later called off on 30 April 2024. As a result of the decision to marry, the applicant purchased an engagement ring and six other items of jewellery that were intended to be wedding gifts for the respondent. It was the applicant’s case that, following the end of the engagement, the applicant discovered that the respondent had been removing various items of jewellery not yet gifted to her from his property without his knowledge or consent. He sought the return of those seven items, a value which the applicant placed at £67,942. The respondent denied that the parties were ever engaged or that there was an impending wedding. It was her case that the applicant planned the wedding himself, and the relationship ended because she did not want to marry him and she found him controlling, coercive, invasive and abusive. In regard to the jewellery, she argued that she had returned two of the items, which he had gifted to her when the relationship ended, and the rest of the items were owned by her or that she had no knowledge of them. The issues that the court needed to determine were: (1) whether there was an engagement, (2) if the items claimed by the applicant ever existed, and (3) whether the respondent had taken and/or retained items that did not belong to her.

The law

Under s 17 of the Married Women’s Property Act 1982, the court has the jurisdiction to determine ownership or possession of property between both married parties and those who were engaged but had terminated their agreement to marry. There is a rebuttable presumption that the gift of an engagement ring is an absolute gift. The presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the condition, expressed or implied, that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason. The court also has the power under s 7 of the Matrimonial Causes (Property and Maintenance) Act 1958 to make orders where money or property has ceased to be in the possession or under the control of one of the parties, in which case the court can order payment by one party to the other of the value of their interest in the asset which has been disposed of or transfer any property which can be traced to the original asset.

Determination

The judge was satisfied that there was an engagement. The purchase of the expensive diamond ring by the applicant for the respondent was a serious gift. The applicant would not have purchased the ring if he did not believe the parties were engaged to be married and it was indeed bought as an engagement ring. The respondent also wore the diamond ring as an engagement ring and posted pictures of her doing so on her Instagram account. There was an email from Chelsea Town Hall confirming the date and place of the marriage. It was implausible that this could have happened without her knowledge/consent and the respondent had not said anything at that stage to the applicant or the Registry Office. There was also an email to a broker in which the respondent introduced herself as the applicant’s fiancé, the parties visiting a solicitor to discuss a prenuptial agreement and email exchanges in Children Act proceedings in which it was recorded that the applicant had proposed to the respondent, and she accepted.

The judge was satisfied that all seven items claimed by the applicant existed due to sight of the invoices evidencing purchase and insurance valuations obtained by the applicant. Consequently, the judge determined that the applicant was indeed in possession of all the items of jewellery which he claimed with a total value of £67,942.

In respect of the final issue, the judge determined that the presumption that the engagement ring was an absolute gift was rebutted as it was the respondent that called off the wedding. In sum, the judge found that, on balance, the missing jewellery items had been removed by the respondent and were either retained by her or had been disposed of by her. It was ordered that the respondent return the items of jewellery claimed by the applicant within seven days of a final order. In default of return of any or all the items, the respondent would pay the applicant the value of any such item not returned as claimed by the applicant and found by the court.