Talks aimed at resolving a legal dispute between a man and his stepmother over a one-sixth share of a €3.38 million Lotto win have failed to bring about a settlement.
The out-of-court talks began on Wednesday morning, the sixth day of the action by David Walsh (52) against his stepmother Mary Walsh (66), Persse Park, Ballinasloe, Co Galway.
He claims he is entitled to €560,000 from the January 22nd, 2011, Lotto win and denied he was given the option of either taking a house owned by her and his late father Peter Walsh or €200,000 from the win.
While he did get the house at Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe, he claims he is still entitled to €560,000 because his signature is among six signatures on the back of the winning ticket.
On Wednesday afternoon, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys was told the parties wished to proceed with the case and Mrs Walsh's cross examination by Dervla Browne SC, for David Walsh, resumed.
Opted for the house
Mrs Walsh agreed David Walsh never told her he was accepting the Knocknagreena house in lieu of €200,000 from the win.
She said Peter Walsh informed her David had opted for the house. The transfer of that property, valued at €135,000, was completed in December 2011 around the time of Peter Walsh’s death.
The court also heard evidence from retired National Lottery claims manager Eamonn Hughes.
Mrs Walsh had told the court she spoke to Mr Hughes following the win and he had advised her about tax liabilities for anyone whom she wished to gift any winnings to. She also said she told Mr Hughes in their phone conversation she was the sole winner of the prize.
Following the conversation, she said it was agreed with her late husband that several others, including David Walsh, were to sign the ticket and sign declarations from the National Lottery to avoid paying gift tax.
The other signatories were the late Peter Walsh; Mary Walsh; her sons Jason, who got €300,000, and Tony, who got £380,000 (about €456,000); and Kevin Black, a nephew of Peter Walsh who got €100,000.
Forming a syndicate
In his evidence, Mr Hughes said he had no recollection of speaking to Ms Walsh about the win but accepted he possibly advised her about forming a syndicate.
All winners are advised to get legal and financial advice and he got the impression the syndicate in this case had been formed after the win, something that happened regularly, he said.
Mr Hughes said the National Lottery didn’t have any rules on how winnings are divided or distributed between syndicate members.
While there is a popular belief all members of a winning syndicate get equal shares, that was often not the case, he said.
In cross-examination, Mr Hughes accepted he described the winners of the prize as “a syndicate” in emails sent by him to others working with the National Lottery.
He also accepted Mrs Walsh could have told him from the start of their conversation the prize had been won by a syndicate and not a sole winner.
Evidence in the case has concluded and both sides will make legal submissions to the court on Thursday.