High court case
In Tweedie v Elt [2024] NZHC 1689, Tweedie and Elt were in a relationship from May 2020 to November 2022. He proposed in July 2022, using a ring he had bought in September 2021, valued at $45,000. Tweedie claimed it had significant personal and symbolic value. After their relationship ended, Elt refused to give the ring back.
The Family Court decision denied his request for the return of an engagement ring from his former partner. In the High Court, Justice Whata overturned the Family Court’s ruling, finding the lower court had erred in its interpretation of the statute and had not given sufficient weight to the appellant’s claims.
This case is notable for its use of the Domestic Actions Act 1975 (DDA), which is rarely invoked in modern family law, and for highlighting the procedural challenges that arise when one party does not engage with the legal process.
Tweedie initiated proceedings in the Family Court under the DAA, seeking relief related to alleged emotional and reputational harm stemming from the relationship. The Family Court dismissed his claim, finding insufficient legal grounds under Section 8 of the act.
Justice Whata noted that the ring was not merely a piece of property but carried emotional weight and was tied to the appellant’s sense of closure and dignity. The High Court found that the Family Court had failed to properly consider the non-financial significance of the item and the circumstances under which it was withheld. This contributed to the decision to overturn the lower court’s ruling. A KC represented the appellant, and the respondent did not appear and was not represented.
The appeal was allowed. There was an order requiring Elt to return the engagement ring. However, Justice Whata refused to make an order for the payment of a sum in lieu.
The case illustrates how personal items in domestic disputes – especially those with symbolic meaning – can become legally relevant.
Comment
It is generally considered that an engagement ring is the separate property of the person who received it. The ring is kept as a gift by the person who received it. This case raised surprise among many lawyers.
Property and contributions
The court examined whether the appellant had made substantial contributions, financial or otherwise, in anticipation of the marriage. This included shared property investments and expenditures made with an expectation of a future together.
Society today
This case serves as a reminder that the law still recognises engagements, particularly when they have shared assets or a significant life decision. It also shows how the DAA can sometimes fill the gap where the relationship is of short duration and the equal sharing provisions of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 may not yet apply.
If you are getting engaged, you should be mindful of the financial issues that arise during this time – clear agreements, transparency and documentation. Even when you’re in a romantic context, it can help avoid legal disputes later.
Prenuptial agreements
A prenuptial agreement is a contract between partners that outlines how assets will be divided in the event of separation. It is often used to protect existing assets where one partner has more assets than the other. It is a legal requirement that both parties must receive independent legal advice. You need to distinguish between your assets and any beneficial interests in trusts, for example.
Future assets
It is always easier to reserve or ring-fence assets that are owned at the date of the agreement as opposed to assets that may be purchased some time in the future.
There is a possibility that an agreement may be overturned if the circumstances have materially changed since the agreement was initially signed. To address this, some people have reviewed clauses within the contract to include review milestones within a specific timeframe. For example, a review could be scheduled within three years or upon the birth of the first child.
Conclusion
Prenuptial agreements are becoming increasingly common. They need to be reviewed regularly to remain valid and enforceable.
One would expect that Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce will sign a prenuptial agreement, but these agreements remain private. You would expect them to ring-fence their existing wealth.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.
