The Gazette 1991

GAZETTE

JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991

law where a judge must decide as a matter .of law whether or not there was sufficient evidence to support a particular allegation and then it must be decided as a matter of fact whether that allegation had been established. A decision whether or not there was a reason- able expectation of a particular benefit accruing is not different from a decision whether or not a head of damage is too remote. The latter was determined as of the date the cause of action accrued. In Barron J's view, the former should also be determined as of that date, i.e. the date of death. Barron J stated that there seemed no reason in principle why re-marriage of a widow should be treated any differently from any other circumstance which gave rise to a benefit to be offset against losses sustained. It had been suggested that the reason for taking the possibility and obviously also the fact of remarriage into account was that otherwise the widow would be receiving support from two husbands at the same time. But the same could be said of children who are taken in by rela- tives, but whose damages were not reduced, or of any other case where a benefit was disregarded other than by reason of a statutory provision. Conc l us i on The judge concluded that he would answer the questions which he had already posed in the following way. The evidence of the hearing to assess damages insofar as it re- lated to the re-marriage should be directed in the first instance to establish whether or not there was a reasonable expectation at the date that this would occur. On the basis that this had been estab- lished, the evidence should then be directed to determining the then value of the benefits accruing to each of the dependants by reason of that re-marriage. The onus of proof in each case lay on the defendants. The standard of proof of reasonable expectations was that of reasonable probability: Pym -v- Great Northern Railway Company (1863) 4 B & S 396.

George V. Maloney, Principal of the firm of George V. Maloney & Co., Cavan, with his daughter Jacqueline Maloney, Solicitor.

75 YEARS IN PRACTICE George V. Maloney & Co. Solicitors, Farnham Street, Cavan, have celebrated the 75th anniversary of the founding of the firm in Cootehill in 1915. George V. Maloney & Co. is the longest running family practice in County Cavan. Three generations of the family have been engaged in the practice. The founder of the firm, the late George V. Maloney, qualified as a solicitor in 1915, which was incidentally the same year as Mr. T. Finlay (father of the current Chief Justice) was called to the Bar. The Chief Justice is a nephew of the late Mr. Maloney's wife, Eileen. East-Cavan Bye-Election In the famous East-Cavan bye- election of 1918, Mr. Maloney acted as election agent for Arthur Griffith. Griffith defeated John Frederick O'Hanlon, Managing Director of The Anglo-Celt, in the election but Mr. Maloney balanced his political activity by marrying Mr. O'Hanlon's niece, Eileen Finlay, in 1923 and they reared a family of seven. Mr. Maloney was a judge of the Sinn Fein Courts and presided at sittings in private houses in the Cavan area. While so engaged he was fired at, and wounded, on several occasions. After the setting up of the State the late Mr. Maloney

also functioned as County Sheriff for a period. Present Principal The present principal Mr. George Maloney qualified as a Solicitor in 1955 and joined his father in the practice. His own daughter Jacqueline who qualified in 1979 also practises in the firm. The Maloney family, their staff and former employees marked the Firm's 75 years in practice with a suitable celebration. Divisional Court of the Family Division (England and Wales) (Sir Stephen Brown, President, and Mrs. Justice Booth) 22 November, 1990. The Independent, (London), Law Report, December 20, 1990. The Divisional Court of the Family Division (England and Wales) held that an order of the lri?h High Court granting a wife interim periodical payments is ir- reconcilable with a decree absolute of divorce granted to the husband in England and therefore the Irish order cannot be enforced in England. The Divisional Court dismissed a wife's appeal by way of case stated by Hove justices who set aside the IRISH MAINTENANCE ORDER NOT ENFORCEABLE IN ENGLAND. Macau/ay -v- Macau/ay.

12