When getting divorced, who gets the engagement ring if the engagement is called off? This question took an interesting turn in the recent case of RI v NG [2025] EWFC 9 (B) (07 January 2025). This case has hit the headlines due to reports of a courtroom battle over a £70,000 engagement ring.
What does the law say about engagement rings?
The law regarding the treatment of engagement rings is over 50 years old and is hidden away at section 3(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970, which says:
The gift of an engagement ring shall be presumed to be an absolute gift; this presumption may be rebutted by proving that the ring was given on the condition, express or implied, that it should be returned if the marriage did not take place for any reason.
So this means that when an engagement is called off the engagement ring will belong to the woman, unless the man can show that he made it clear on giving the engagement ring that it would have to be returned if the wedding didn’t happen.
Perhaps interestingly, there is no equivalent provision in the Civil Partnership Act 2004 for couples who are planning on entering a civil partnership, but then one of them calls it off.
What happening in RI v NG
First, a note about the catchy name of the case. Some judges are keen to add ‘flourishes’ to their judgements. In the court case involving the famous author Dan Brown and his book The Da Vinci Code, the Judge put his own ‘code’ into his judgement. More recently, in a case about whether the husband or wife should keep the dog after a divorce, the Judge named the case FI v DO.
In the case of RI v NG, the judge was following in this tradition. Names of the parties to family law cases are often anonymised to protect privacy. Therefore, random initials are often used instead of the parties’ names. In RI v NG, rather than using random letters for the parties’ names, the judge has of course used very specific letters to spell out ‘RING’ because the case is all about an engagement ring. Who said judges don’t have a sense of humour.
Whilst the participants in these cases may not appreciate their costly and stressful courtroom dramas perhaps seemingly being trivialised in this way, it will no doubt assist law students when trying to remember cases in their exams!
So, what happened?
The case of RI v NG involved a couple who were involved in a whirlwind romance of 3 months, during which time they became engaged, and the man paid for lavish holidays as well as buying the woman expensive jewellery, including an engagement ring worth over £20,000. The total gifts of jewellery were almost £70,000. On the woman ending the relationship, the man wanted all the jewellery returning. The outcome of the case was that the Judge said that the woman had to return all of the jewellery, including the engagement ring.
Perhaps controversially, the Judge in the RI v NG case said:
‘Given that it was Ms NG who ended the relationship by calling off the wedding I am satisfied that the presumption (that the engagement ring is a gift) is rebutted…’
There has been an understanding among lawyers that unless the man specifically says that the engagement ring must be handed back if wedding doesn’t go ahead, or it’s implied because the ring is a family heirloom, then the ring will remain with the woman. It’s a pretty simple concept; if you give someone a gift, then it’s theirs and so you can’t just ask for it back if you fall out with them.
There were some other reasons given in the RI v NG case, but by the Judge feeling that the woman calling off the wedding meant that she had to hand the ring back, is an unusual decision.
Contrast with other cases
This is particularly the case when looking at other similar cases.
It seems that separating lawyers are the keen to argue over who should keep the ring when the engagement breaks down as the following cases show.
In the 2004 case of Cox v Jones, two barristers argued over who should keep the engagement ring. In that case the man said that on proposing he specifically told his fiancée that if the wedding didn’t happen that he’d want the ring back. The Judge rejected that this happened and said it was implausible that such an unromantic remark would have been made.
In another case involving another lawyer, Walsh v Singh, the man said that the woman had broken off the engagement and returned the ring. However, the woman argued that she’d only given the ring back to the man for resizing. The judge found in favour of the woman and she was entitled to keep the engagement ring after they separated.
A move towards a US system
A recent US case made the headlines because it involved a $70,000 Tiffany diamond engagement ring.
According to the article, in the US state of Massachusetts, the old law was that if an engagement broke down then the ring would only have to be returned if the man had acted ‘without fault’ i.e. the man hadn’t caused the breakdown of the engagement by having an affair or caused the engagement to fail in some other way.
The case regarding the $70,000 Tiffany ring went to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court with the law being changed and the Court saying:
'We now join the modern trend adopted by the majority of jurisdictions that have considered the issue and retire the concept of fault in this context.’
'Where, as here, the planned wedding does not ensue and the engagement is ended, the engagement ring must be returned to the donor regardless of fault.'
The Judge’s decision in the English case of RI v NG is more in line with the US decision and perhaps shows a move towards there being an appetite in the Courts for engagement rings to be given back to the man if the marriage doesn’t go ahead.
How can you keep an engagement ring if your engagement is called off?
You can see that there are no guarantees in law which makes going to Court is a risky and expensive. With the average engagement ring in the England and Wales said to cost approximately £2,000, it’s unlikely to be cost-effective to go to Court to argue over who should keep it. Even if the ring is a $70,000 Tiffany diamond ring, with very little certainty as to what a decision a Judge will make in your case, going to Court is still going to be a gamble and expensive. So, what’s the solution?
The answer to this would be to have a Prenup. Not only could the Prenup deal with the issue of any engagement ring, it could also deal with perhaps much more important issues such as what will happen to the house, pensions, savings and whether any maintenance should be paid. By having a Prenup, you and your partner can decide between you how you want to divide up your assets if the marriage doesn’t work out. This means avoiding a lengthy, costly and uncertain Court battle over the assets if your marriage does unfortunately break down in the future.
Will a prenuptial agreement help me keep an engagement ring if the wedding is called off?
If you’re engaged, whether you have an expensive ring, or no ring at all, it’s worth thinking about whether the certainty provided by a Prenup could benefit you.
