What happens to assets when engaged couples separate?

As we have highlighted in recent blogs, there is a stark difference under English law between the rights of those going through divorce or dissolution and those who are separating after having lived with a partner, if they have not been married or in a civil partnership.

Whilst spouses and civil partners can pursue a wide range of financial claims against each other and the Family Court can transfer assets between parties and/or make orders for financial provision based on each party’s respective needs and/or their entitlement to share any assets which have accrued during their relationship, cohabiting couples have no such rights.

Couples who have lived together cannot ask the court to order lump sum payments or ongoing maintenance for themselves and they cannot seek any share of their partner’s pension on separation. They have no legal entitlement to financial provision on the grounds of needs and the court will not allow them to share any assets which are owned by their partner, however long they have lived together.

For cohabiting couples, financial claims are limited to clarifying who owns any assets and, if necessary, to seeking an order for the sale of any property, as well as any financial claims which can be made on behalf of any minor children.

What happens when a couple has been engaged before they separate? This area of law has been considered in the recent case of RI v NG [2025] EWFC 9 (B).

Background

The case involved Mr RI, who was 59 and Ms NG who was 42. Mr RI had brought an application to the court under the Married Women's Property Act 1882 for the return of seven items of jewellery, including an engagement ring, all of which he argued Ms NG had stolen from him following the breakdown of their engagement. In default of their return, he sought a lump sum of £67,942, which was equivalent to his assessment of their combined value.

Both parties had very different accounts of the nature of their relationship, the items in question and the circumstances which had led to the application being submitted. Ms NG denied that they had been engaged (instead arguing that Mr RI was coercive and controlling and that he had planned a wedding without her consent) and she argued that, out of the list of jewellery provided by Mr RI, she had returned the two items he had gifted to her and either the rest were already owned by her or she had no knowledge of them.

Having heard evidence from both of them, the judge preferred Mr RI’s case and found that the couple had been engaged and that Ms NG had broken it off. He also accepted Mr RI’s evidence on the items of jewellery and their assumed value.

The law

The Married Women's Property Act 1882 provides that, in the absence of agreement, the court can determine ownership of assets between parties who have been engaged prior to separation and, if the asset is no longer in the possession of a party, and cannot be traced, the court can order an equivalent lump sum to be paid, as Mr RI was seeking.

The law also states that there is a presumption that the giving of an engagement ring is an outright gift, which means that it will usually be retained by the recipient in the event of an engagement subsequently breaking down. However, this presumption can be rebutted with sufficient evidence that the ring was given on the condition, whether express or implied, that it should be returned to the giver of the ring if the marriage doesn’t take place.

The judge’s findings in this case

On the evidence before the court, the judge was persuaded that the usual presumption relating to engagement rings had been rebutted in this case. The judge noted that it was Ms NG who called off the engagement, which was in itself a relevant factor. Further, and notwithstanding that the judge did not actually accept that Ms NG had left the ring with Mr RI, it was noted that Ms NG’s assertions that she had left the ring with a bracelet in Mr RI’s home reflected her own acceptance that the ring should have been returned.

The judge ordered that Ms NG must return all of the seven items of jewellery to Mr RI within 7 days of the date of the order, failing which she must pay Mr RI the value of any items not so returned.

The judge also noted the expectation that Ms NG should pay Mr RI’s costs of the proceedings, given the findings made. This approach to legal costs also differs from the approach of the Family Court (whereby the starting point is that each party pays their own legal costs and costs orders will only be made by the court in specific circumstances). This is a further difference because the couple were not married or in a civil partnership and, although they were found to have been engaged, this was not a claim for financial remedy, as they could have pursued in relation to a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership.

Conclusion

This case is a reminder that the financial claims which are available to engaged couples are different from the claims which can be brought between those who have been married or in a civil partnership. The entitlement of couples who have been engaged is more aligned with couples who have cohabited in that they are not entitled to pursue financial remedy claims against each other.

There are some enhanced claims which can be pursued by engaged couples under the Married Women's Property Act 1882, including, as in this case, in relation to the engagement ring.

Anyone who is going through a relationship breakdown should obtain specialist family law advice, whatever the status of their relationship, to ensure they understand the law as it applies to their specific circumstances and so that they can consider the options and make a fully informed decision as to the best way forward. 

Our content explained