RI v NG

Factual and Procedural Background

This case concerns an application under the Married Women's Property Act 1882 by the Applicant for the return of various items of jewellery he asserts were stolen by his former fiancée, the Respondent. In default of return, the Applicant seeks a lump sum equivalent to the value of the jewellery. The matter was set for a one-day final hearing but could not be concluded within the time estimate. Evidence was completed but there was insufficient time for submissions, leading the court to direct written submissions and schedule a further hearing for formal judgment delivery and any outstanding issues.

The Applicant relied on statements from three witnesses who could not attend due to a religious holiday; the court declined to give weight to their evidence due to absence of cross-examination. Another witness was summoned but did not provide a statement, and the court found his evidence unnecessary. The Respondent's counsel raised serious new allegations of coercive and controlling behaviour by the Applicant and alleged fabrication of documents, but these issues were not previously raised or directed for evidence and were not explored at the hearing.

The court refused to allow cross-examination on the Applicant's business dealings with a third party, finding it irrelevant. The Respondent's counsel referenced unsubstantiated allegations concerning this third party, which were unsupported by evidence.

Substantively, the parties met in June 2023 and the Applicant contended they were engaged to marry in February 2024 with a wedding planned for May 2024, which the Respondent called off in April 2024. The Applicant claimed ownership of seven items of jewellery intended as wedding gifts, valued at approximately £67,942, excluding items he admits were gifted. The Respondent denied engagement or impending marriage, asserting the Applicant was controlling and coercive, and stated she returned two gifted items and denied knowledge of the remaining items.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the parties were legally engaged to be married.
2. Whether the jewellery items claimed by the Applicant were owned by him and intended as wedding gifts.
3. Whether the Respondent unlawfully retained or removed items belonging to the Applicant.
4. The application of statutory presumptions regarding engagement rings and property rights under the Married Women's Property Act 1882 and related legislation.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The parties were engaged to marry, with the wedding planned for May 2024.
• The jewellery items were purchased by him as wedding gifts and remain his property.
• The Respondent removed jewellery without consent following the broken engagement.
• Evidence from invoices, insurance valuations, and conduct (such as social media posts) supports the engagement and ownership claims.

Respondent's Arguments

• Denies any engagement or consent to marry.
• Alleges the Applicant was controlling, coercive, and abusive.
• Claims some items were already owned by her or gifted prior to the alleged engagement.
• Alleges fabrication and manipulation of documents by the Applicant.
• Contests the authenticity of invoices and evidence relating to jewellery ownership.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully evaluated the evidence and witness credibility, preferring the Applicant's account over the Respondent's due to inconsistencies and implausibilities in her testimony. The court found that the parties were engaged to marry, relying on documentary evidence such as invoices, social media posts, emails, and conduct including planning a wedding and discussing a pre-nuptial agreement. The court acknowledged some controlling behaviour by the Applicant but did not find it sufficient to establish coercion impacting the Respondent's decisions.

The court accepted the Applicant's evidence of ownership and purchase of the jewellery items, rejecting the Respondent's allegations of fabrication due to lack of supporting evidence. The presumption that an engagement ring is a gift was rebutted on the basis that the Respondent called off the wedding. The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent removed the jewellery without consent and retained or disposed of it unlawfully.

Procedural fairness was maintained by allowing written submissions in lieu of oral argument due to time constraints, and the court invited parties to agree on order wording and costs to avoid further hearings.

Holding and Implications

The court ordered the Respondent to return the claimed jewellery items within seven days of the final order. In default of return, the Respondent must pay the Applicant the value of any items not returned as found by the court.

No costs order was made immediately, but the court indicated it would be difficult for the Respondent to resist a costs application by the Applicant given the findings. The judgment does not establish new legal precedent but resolves the property dispute between the parties based on the statutory framework and evidence presented.