Engagement

It is convenient to say a word about engagement, which in some societies is almost as solemn and carries almost as many responsibilities as marriage itself. This is not generally so in England, where an engagement is no more than an agreement between two parties that they will marry at some (often unspecified) future date. Such an agreement was formerly regarded as a contract between the parties, and breaking off an engagement could lead to an action for "breach of promise", but s.1 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1970 put an end to such actions by declaring that an agreement to marry is not an enforceable contract. The same Act clarifies certain aspects of property law in relation to engaged couples. Under s.3(1), a gift from one party to the other may be subject to an (express or implied) condition that it is to be returned if the marriage does not go ahead; if so, the condition applies no matter which party broke off the engagement. Under s.3(2), however, there is a rebuttable presumption that no such condition attaches to an engagement ring. Whether engagement gifts from third parties belong to one or both of the couple is a matter of the donor's intention, though where the donor is much closer to one than to the other, that may be useful evidence.

Section 2 addresses the beneficial interests of engaged couples in property they may have bought or worked on together, allowing the courts to determine such interests as if the couple had been married. The scope of this section is quite limited, however: it covers only those cases where an interest arises under the ordinary law of trusts, and does not give the courts the wide discretion they have in matrimonial cases.:

Bernard v Josephs [1982] 3 All ER 162, CA
An engaged couple M and W bought a house and lived in it together; the house was in their joint names, they shared the initial expenses more or less equally, and the mortgage instalments were paid out of the rent received from lodgers. When they separated two years later, W moved out and M remained in the house with another woman: W sought an order that the house should be sold and a declaration that she was entitled to a half share in the proceeds. The trial judge made the order and the declaration sought (subject to minor deductions), and M appealed. The Court of Appeal postponed the order so that M could buy out W's interest, but upheld the declaration.

Mossop v Mossop [1988] 2 All ER 202, CA
An engaged couple P and D lived together in D's house; when they separated, P claimed a property transfer order giving her a share in the value of the house. (Such an order is available to a spouse, at the court's discretion, under s.24(1)(b) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.) The registrar struck out the claim, and Ewbank J and the Court of Appeal affirmed his decision. Balcombe LJ said property transfer orders are available only in cases of divorce, nullity or judicial separation, and the 1970 Act did not give the court jurisdiction to make any such order where a couple had broken off an engagement.

Back To Family Law Resources

Secure your law degree, order your family law essay right now!

Engagement

Secure your law degree, order your family law essay right now!

Order Now. It takes less than 2 minutes.

Law essay writing

Law resources

Law essays

Law dissertations