Should Have Put a Ring on It: RI v NG [2025] and the Rare Revival of the Married Women’s Property Act 1882

Beyoncé’s advice to “put a ring on it” resonates in the world of relationships, but in the case of RI v NG [2025] EWFC 9 (B), the ring itself became the centre of a legal firestorm. This glittering dispute over a diamond engagement ring and other jewellery not only captivated the courtroom but also revived the little-known Married Women’s Property Act 1882 (MWPA). Here’s a closer look at what happened when love didn’t last, and the jewellery became the real prize.

When Love Turns to Litigation

It all started as a whirlwind romance between Mr. RI, a 59-year-old businessman, and Ms. NG, a 42-year-old recovering from alcohol dependency. Flowers, dinners, and gifts turned into a diamond engagement ring, a planned wedding, and a hefty jewellery collection worth nearly ￡68,000.

But just two weeks before the big day, NG called off the wedding. That’s when RI discovered that the jewellery—intended as wedding gifts—had allegedly been removed from his possession. Determined to reclaim the items (or their value), RI turned to the MWPA 1882 for help.

The Married Women’s Property Act 1882: A Victorian Throwback

Though the MWPA 1882 might feel like it belongs in a dusty legal history book, it’s still a powerful tool in resolving disputes over property between married or engaged couples. Section 17 of the Act allows courts to decide who owns property when a relationship breaks down.

In this case, another legal nugget came into play: Section 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, which presumes that an engagement ring is an absolute gift unless the giver proves it was given on the condition (express or implied) that it be returned if the marriage doesn’t happen.

Spoiler alert: that condition was key to RI’s case.

The Judgment: A Legal Ring of Fire

District Judge Ashworth’s judgment was as detailed as a Beyoncé music video storyline. Here’s the breakdown:

1. Was There Even an Engagement? NG denied ever agreeing to marry RI, claiming he planned the wedding unilaterally. But the evidence, including Instagram posts of her wearing the ring, an email to a broker calling RI her fiancé, and their visit to a registry office, told a different story. The court found the engagement was real, even if the romance fizzled.
2. The Ring Wasn’t Forever While engagement rings are presumed to be gifts, RI rebutted the presumption by showing it was given on the condition it would be returned if the wedding didn’t happen. Since NG called off the engagement, she was required to give it back.
3. The Jewellery Didn’t Belong to NG The court ruled that the other jewellery, intended as wedding gifts, had not been gifted to NG yet. Her claims that she had no knowledge of the items—or that they didn’t exist—were dismissed as implausible.
4. RI Was the More Credible Witness Despite allegations of coercion and control, the judge found RI to be a more reliable witness than NG, whose version of events shifted under scrutiny.

Lessons in Love, Loss, and Litigation

This case offers a few sparkling insights for anyone dealing with relationship property disputes:

• Engagement Rings Aren’t Always Gifts While the default assumption is that engagement rings are gifts, this presumption can be overturned if it’s shown they were conditional on marriage taking place. If you’re giving or accepting a ring, it’s worth considering the strings that might be attached.
• Evidence is Everything In disputes like this, detailed records are vital. RI’s ability to produce invoices, emails, and even social media posts helped him shine in court.
• The MWPA 1882 Still Has Power Don’t underestimate this old-school statute. It remains a critical tool for resolving ownership disputes between couples, whether married, separated, or (as in this case) formerly engaged.
• Credibility Matters Consistency and plausibility go a long way in court. RI’s straightforward evidence and NG’s shaky narrative tipped the scales in his favour.

Final Thoughts: If You Like It, Don’t Just Put a Ring on It

RI v NG reminds us that engagements aren’t just emotional—they can have significant legal implications. The case is a lesson in how courts handle property disputes when the romance fades, and it shows that sometimes, the most valuable thing to protect in a relationship isn’t the jewellery but the evidence.

So, if you like it and you’re going to put a ring on it, make sure everyone’s on the same page about what that ring means—or risk a courtroom encore you didn’t see coming.

Contact Information

James Thornton Family Law is open for business, and we’re ready to help with your family law needs. For more information or to book a consultation, please get in touch:

• Phone: 01904 373111
• Email: [email protected]
• Website: www.jamesthorntonfamilylaw.co.uk
• Office Address: James Thornton Family Law, Popeshead Court Offices, Peter Lane York YO1 8SU