Q: My fiance called off our engagement several months ago. At the time, this came as a shock to me. Photo / 123RF
OPINION
Q: My fiance called off our engagement several months ago. At the time, this came as a shock to me. We had been living together for around a year. I thought our relationship was strong. We planned to get married next February. I had paid a non-refundable deposit to
secure a popular Waiheke wedding venue. I also paid for the engagement ring she selected at an eye-watering cost. I thought she would be reasonable and return the ring to me. So far, she has ignored my messages about this. I believe she should repay me half the cost of the wedding venue deposit and return the ring to me. What are my chances of getting an order to this effect from the Family Court? Is this something worth me pursuing?
In short, yes, you could apply for orders from the Family Court, but it probably would not be worth it.
The Domestic Actions Act 1975 allows the court to restore a party who is financially worse-off after an engagement has ended to the position they would have been in had the engagement not occurred. It is important to note this legislation does not apply to those who have been in a de facto relationship for three years or more; in this case, the relationship property legislation applies. An agreement to marry that is terminated is required, so this legislation will also not apply to those in de facto relationships who have not become engaged.
There is the need to draw a distinction between cases where couples have lived together from those where they have not. Where couples have lived together, it is more appropriate to deal with applications under this legislation “holistically” and look at all assets, rather than isolated assets such as engagement rings. The contributions made by both parties to the relationship will also need to be considered: both financial and non-financial (for example, housework and caring for children). This sort of investigation by the court would likely mean a longer hearing time and more detailed evidence. This spells more uncertainty as to the outcome and higher legal fees.