By Jeremy Wilkinson of 
Photo: RNZ / Dan Cook
A man has unsuccessfully attempted to sue his ex-fianceé for a $45,000 engagement ring he gave her.
The couple were together for several years before the man proposed with a three-stone diamond ring in a platinum setting.
However, four months later the relationship fell apart and the man attempted to take the woman to court to either get the ring back or the amount he claimed it cost him to buy.
In a Family Court judgment from October, released today, Judge Andrea Manuel declined the man's application for a court order for the return of the ring.
According to the judgment the couple began a de facto relationship during the first Covid-19 lockdown in 2020.
At the time Katie River* was in her late 20s and Steve Lambert* was 40.
Lambert was the managing director of a company and in comparison to River had substantial wealth.
She moved into his home and they attempted to start a family together, scheduling appointments at a fertility clinic soon after their relationship began.
At Lambert's suggestion, the woman left her job and worked for him as an executive assistant, and he used the government Covid wage subsidy to pay her.
However, the work she ended up doing didn't match the job description. Rather, she ended up predominantly doing housework and selling second-hand goods while the wage subsidy paid for living expenses.
When the lockdown ended, River found it hard to return to the workforce given her background in hospitality, so she continued to work for Lambert as his assistant.
In this capacity, she said she assisted with the sale of two of his properties and associated furnishings.
The sale of those two properties funded a new third home, which the couple moved into together.
Lambert disagreed to the extent River helped and Judge Manuel said it was clear he viewed himself as the main contributor to the relationship and maintained that returning the ring was necessary to restore him to the financial position he would have been if they'd never agreed to marry.
Lambert asked River to marry him in 2022 but four months later the relationship ended after she obtained a temporary protection order against him on the grounds of physical and psychological abuse.
Lambert denied the allegations, which were ultimately settled.
He remained in the new house while River moved back with her parents, having used all her savings and unable to find a job.
Lambert agreed to pay her $10,000, which she spent on legal fees for the family violence case against him, and on preparing for the case to keep the ring.
Lambert relied on a seldom-used piece of law called the Domestic Actions Act, 1975, which abolished the ability to claim damages if one party committed adultery or breached their promise to marry.
In this case, it also clarified property disputes arising from an agreement to marry someone.
In 1976, the Property Relationships Act was introduced setting out the rules for what happens to the division of property when a relationship ends in separation or death.
The Domestic Actions Act was then amended to include de facto relationships - where a couple has been living together for at least two years - as well as traditional marriages.
Many couples who agreed to marry lived in de facto relationships and relied on the provisions of the Property Relationships Act, rather than the Domestic Actions Act, to resolve their property disputes, which is why the latter was used so infrequently.
Lambert argued because the de facto relationship was of such a short duration he was able to apply for the ring back under the Domestic Actions Act.
River's lawyers claimed the ring was a gift and was separate property. They were surprised when the claim for the ring was lodged because they understood the settlement in the family violence proceedings had ended all disputes between the couple.
River ran out of money to pay her lawyers and self-represented for some of the court proceedings before she stopped engaging.
Judge Manuel said there was no evidence about how much Lambert actually paid for the ring nor how much it was worth.
She said the other difficulty was in isolating a single item of property in a relationship dispute when the couple had been in a de facto relationship for two-and-a-half years.
"If a single item such as the ring is dealt with in a vacuum and the contributions made by the parties to property and to the relationship more generally are put to one side, an injustice may occur," Judge Manuel said.
She said if the court made an order in Lambert's favour there would be a risk that if River didn't have the ring or didn't return it then she'd have to pay her ex more than it was actually worth.
The judge also noted that while Lambert might be returned to the financial state he would have been if they'd never agreed to marry, River wouldn't.
Judge Manuel declined to grant Lambert's application for the ring or its value to be returned or paid to him.
*Katie River and Steve Lambert are not their real names. These are pseudonyms assigned by the Family Court to protect their identities.
- This story was first published by the NZ Herald.
