`Sad' saga of the man, his wife and her lover

The "unusual and sad" saga of how a husband agreed to his wife's affair with a wealthy property developer in exchange for underwriting the pair's pounds 200,000 debts ended in acrimony yesterday when the High Court ruled that their agreement was unenforceable.

Allen Marsh, 62, his wife Doreen, 59, now face losing their home to service the debts after Mr Justice Lindsay said Mr Marsh's agreement at a lunch with his wife's long-time lover, Basil Dunning, 69, was simply a "gentleman's agreement".

Although Mr Dunning had "dazzled" Mrs Marsh with his riches, the judge ordered that the Marshes should pay his costs. The couple, who were married in 1955 and have two grown-up daughters, were also directed to provide a sworn statement within 14 days if they had received anything above pounds 500 for the story from the media. It was understood the Daily Mail and Daily Express had made approaches but no deal had been done.

The Marshes told the court that Mr Dunning, Mrs Marsh's lover since the 1960s, had offered in 1988 to buy a love-nest to carry on their affair after Mr Marsh had refused to let them see each other at his cherished cottage home near Salisbury in Wiltshire.

They said that Mr Dunning covered a pounds 165,000 loan for the purchase of a pounds 180,000 home near Winchester, Hampshire. But Mr Dunning, of south-east London, who ended the affair when he had a stroke in 1991, said he always regarded the house as her property.

He also denied ever accepting liability for their debts, which included a pounds 38,000 overdraft and Mrs Marsh's "expenses" incurred as his mistress, and alleged he was blackmailed by the couple, who threatened to tell his wife of the extent of the affair if he reneged.

The judge ruled that there was no basis in fact for any of the contracts. None of the three, he said, emerged without discredit from what was an "an unusual and sad saga".

Mr Dunning attributed his stroke to the pressure which he was put under and his second wife, Reeva, divorced him when she found out about the affair.

Mrs Marsh had had to disclose herself as a discarded mistress who had lost the high-spending life she had enjoyed with Mr Dunning and was now faced with considerable debt.

Her husband was faced with equal debt and also whatever opprobrium attached to a man who had been seen to have made such a bargain as he did at the lunch with Mr Dunning.

Mrs Marsh told the judge that Mr Dunning, who called her by her other first name, Louise, described her as a "Cinderella" and encouraged her to buy the "biggest, the best and the most expensive". This included dressing in designer suits and wearing expensive perfume. Once the couple moved into the new house her spending had "taken off".

Mr Dunning, who has been in financial difficulties since the late 1980s, was too incapacitated to give evidence in person.

But, in a statement read to the court, he said: "I was not a bottomless pit. It was not my intention to fund a permanent and ever-increasing overdraft."

None of the three - who all needed legal aid to pursue the proceedings - was in court.