Affective Relationships Research Articles

Injuries to Consortium in Modern Anglo-American Law

IN the recently reported decision of Devlin J. in Winchester v. Fleming 1 it seems that the Marquess of Winchester had spent some nine months in 1951-52 as the guest on the Nassau estate of the defendant, Mrs. Fleming, a widow of considerable means. At this time, the Marquess, a man of nearly ninety years old, was trying (and clearly failing) to live on an income of between ?200 and ?450 a year. An affectionate relationship grew up and the couple became unofficially engaged. In May, 1952, however, while they were both visiting London, the defendant took advice from her doctor who said she was not strong enough to marry a man so much older than herself and she broke off the engagement. The affectionate relationship between the couple continued, despite the fact that within two months the Marquess married the plaintiff, the daughter of a distinguished Parsee, who was then living in London. Six months after marrying the plaintiff, when she returned to visit India, the Marquess took up his residence once again in Nassau, at first with friends, and then, as before, as the guest of Mrs. Fleming. His postal relations with his wife deteriorated and finally he wrote to tell her that he did not want to live with her again. He even tried (unsuccessfully) to obtain a Mexican divorce. In May, 1954, the plaintiff filed an action against the defendant for enticement and libel; the defendant joined issue with a cross-claim for libel; but all was finally settled out of court and a written agreement entered into in July, 1956, to regulate their relations. It provided, among other things, that the plaintiff and defendant would not at any time hereafter or in any manner directly or indirectly disturb or interfere with the other of them. The Marquess, however, still stayed with the defendant in Nassau until, in mid-1957 (having during the previous year tried to obtain a nullity decree from the Supreme Court of the Bahamas, the suit being dismissed for lack of jurisdiction), the