The former fiancé of Shay Given, a football legend, and she are currently engaged in a legal dispute over whether she should return an Aston Martin and a £300,000 engagement ring.
Jane Given, 47, argues that even though she dumped Andrew Ralph and called off their engagement, she should be allowed to retain the expensive ring and £200,000 supercar since they were “gifts” from her ex-lover.
After divorcing goalkeeper Shay, with whom she has two children and who plays for the Republic of Ireland and the Premier League, in 2013, the former model started dating Mr. Ralph, 54, in February 2018.
He purchased her an Aston Martin DBX throughout their relationship because they intended to be married and “so that they could have matching automobiles” in “matching colors.”
In addition, Mr. Ralph presented her with an engagement ring that he said was worth about £300,000 while on vacation in Barbados in December 2019.
After Ms. Given and her ex-fiance called it quits in December 2020, he is now suing her to get the ring and the vehicle back.
He argues that because the automobile was “a wedding gift” and their wedding did not occur, it should be given back to him.
It was also “expressly and/or impliedly agreed that the defendant would return the engagement ring if the marriage did not continue,” according to his attorneys.
Ms. Given, however, is arguing that since the ring and the supercar were “gifts,” her ex has no right to now want them back.
WhatsApp communications will now be used prominently as evidence in the court case between the former couple to determine ownership of the £500,000 worth of property.
In a preliminary hearing in the London High Court, Mr. Justice Freedman ruled that he had seen “several WhatsApp messages” between the former couple that “are alleged to be informative of the purpose of the parties.”
He argued that Ms. Given “relies upon” the WhatsApp exchanges “as proof” that the vehicle and ring were given to her “absolutely as a gift” and cannot be taken back by her ex.
The judge said, “For instance, on Monday, October 19, 2020, Mr. Ralph wrote, “It’s your vehicle! Xx,” “Just enjoy your vacation, and I’ll have it on the drive for your return,” and “Fantastic wedding pressie and amazing timing very thrilled x.”
He continued by stating that Mr. Ralph had also used WhatsApp evidence to support his claim.
Within hours of the defendant leaving him, Mr. Ralph wrote in a WhatsApp message: “I’m scheduled to arrive Friday and will collect my vehicle, my belongings, and take back the ring so it can be sold.”
“As a gentleman, I will return the £80,000 and give you the other half of the money (which covers school expenses). Good night, said the judge.
Additionally, Mr. Ralph informed Ms. Given through email that he would be visiting her house in the UK to pick up the DBX. He stated: “DBX – this was meant to be a wedding present.”
“There was a wedding, but there won’t be one now, and the automobile still belongs to me.” I will collect it on Saturday*’. Additionally, he claimed the engagement ring, claiming he would divide the sale price as a gesture of goodwill.
When her ex asked about the DBX automobile, Ms. Given’s attorneys responded, saying to her: “With respect to the DBX car, we are aware your client had this manufactured for her and delivered it to her as a gift, replete with registration number. Our customer was also given the engagement ring.
The automobile was meant to be a wedding present, but the fact is that the wedding never happened, said Mr. Ralph’s attorneys in response. In the circumstances, the vehicle was never gifted to your client.’
The claimant claims that it was explicitly and/or impliedly agreed that the defendant would return the engagement ring if the marriage did not continue, the court noted in describing the ring dispute.
This is in dispute: the defendant disputes the existence of any such arrangement and maintains that the ring was given as an unqualified gift.
In regards to the automobile, Mr. Ralph filed a request for summary judgment, pleading with the court to return it to him without holding a full trial.
However, Mr. Justice Freedman claimed that the issues were too complicated to be resolved outside of a full trial.
He said, “This is a scenario that results from a connection between two persons, Andrew Ralph and Jane Given.
They got engaged, but their romance ended before they could wed.
“They both loved fancy cars.” There are disagreements between the parties on whether or not the claimant gave the defendant any promises or gifts.
He denied Mr. Ralph’s requests and stated, “I have found that the defendant has at least a real prospect of success in fact and law, both in defending the claimant’s claims and in maintaining her counterclaims.”
The claimant’s request for summary judgment regarding the DBX and related items must be denied for the reasons stated above.
Unless they can reach an out-of-court settlement first, the former lovers will now argue their case in front of the jury in a full trial.
Leave a Reply