Rodney Brender LCM
Court or Tribunal: Local Courts of NSW
Catchwords: Contributions, Property
Judges: Rodney Brender LCM
Background: Edwin Shien Bing Toh and Winnie Chu Ling Su met through a mutual friend in 2015. By October of that that year Toh had proposed to Su, and they soon opened joint bank accounts and visited a jewellery store to buy a $15,500 engagement ring and two wedding bands totalling $1300. Later, the couple left Australia on a trip to China and Toh gave his fiancée Su both wedding bands “so that she could show them to her parents”. But the course of their relationship ended abruptly on March 5, 2016, when Mr Toh called off the engagement after three months. At a meeting attended by his former fiancée and a friend, Mr Toh said “everything that belongs to each party will be returned to each party”, and Ms Su agreed. Ms Su demanded back all the gifts she had given him, including the s
[Legal Issue]By section 111A(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), the Parliament abolished the right to recover damages for breach of promise to marry. Subsection 2 provides that the section does not affect an action for the recovery of any gifts given in contemplation of marriage which could have been brought if the section had not been enacted. Thus, whilst the action of breach of promise to marry was abolished, it was contemplated that there might still be recovery of conditional gifts.
I find however that there was no intention to contract. It was a domestic, emotional setting. The plaintiff suggested they should both give back things belonging to the other. The defendant said “ok”. It was not intended to affect legal rights to retain completed gifts if a party wished to do that.
[Court Orders]The plaintiff had a part victory, in which he was not able to get the engagement ring returned. However the defendant was required to deliver to the plaintiff the two wedding bands and pay the plaintiff $1,000
Catchwords: Contributions, Property
Judges: Rodney Brender LCM
Background: Edwin Shien Bing Toh and Winnie Chu Ling Su met through a mutual friend in 2015. By October of that that year Toh had proposed to Su, and they soon opened joint bank accounts and visited a jewellery store to buy a $15,500 engagement ring and two wedding bands totalling $1300. Later, the couple left Australia on a trip to China and Toh gave his fiancée Su both wedding bands “so that she could show them to her parents”. But the course of their relationship ended abruptly on March 5, 2016, when Mr Toh called off the engagement after three months. At a meeting attended by his former fiancée and a friend, Mr Toh said “everything that belongs to each party will be returned to each party”, and Ms Su agreed. Ms Su demanded back all the gifts she had given him, including the s
[Legal Issue]By section 111A(1) of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth), the Parliament abolished the right to recover damages for breach of promise to marry. Subsection 2 provides that the section does not affect an action for the recovery of any gifts given in contemplation of marriage which could have been brought if the section had not been enacted. Thus, whilst the action of breach of promise to marry was abolished, it was contemplated that there might still be recovery of conditional gifts.
I find however that there was no intention to contract. It was a domestic, emotional setting. The plaintiff suggested they should both give back things belonging to the other. The defendant said “ok”. It was not intended to affect legal rights to retain completed gifts if a party wished to do that.
[Court Orders]The plaintiff had a part victory, in which he was not able to get the engagement ring returned. However the defendant was required to deliver to the plaintiff the two wedding bands and pay the plaintiff $1,000