31 / 462
GAZETTE
JANUARY/FEBRUARY 1991
George V. Maloney, Principal of the firm of George V. Maloney & Co., Cavan, with
his daughter Jacqueline Maloney, Solicitor.
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.
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.
IRISH MAINTENANCE ORDER
NOT ENFORCEABLE IN ENGLAND.
Macau/ay -v- Macau/ay.
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
12