A solicitor who represented a woman being sued for a one-sixth share of a €3.38 million Lotto win has told the High Court there was no mention to her of a house being transferred to the woman's stepson instead of cash from the win.
Solicitor Aileen Giblin, of Jack Duncan and Co solicitors, said the firm acted for the late Peter Walsh and his wife Mary in relation to acquisition of a new house for them and transfer of their previous home to David Walsh, son of Peter Walsh.
The firm also acted in relation to the estate of Peter Walsh after he died in December 2011.
Arising out of the win, David Walsh has sued Mary Walsh, his stepmother, claiming he is entitled to a €560,000 share of the €3.38 million Lotto prize of January 22nd, 2011.
Mr Walsh (52), of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe, Co Galway, claims his signature is among six signatures on the back of the winning ticket and he is entitled to a one-sixth share.
He claims his late father, his cousin Kevin Black, Ms Walsh and her sons Anthony and Jason Daly also signed the back of the ticket.
Mary Walsh (65), of Perssepark, Ballinasloe, being sued personally and as personal representative of Peter Walsh’s estate, denies David Walsh was part of a syndicate that won the €3.38 million prize or that she holds €560,000 in trust for him.
She claims she bought and owned the winning ticket, intended to make gifts from the prize and was advised that having the potential beneficiaries sign the back of the ticket would avoid them having to pay tax on those gifts.
Cheques sent
Various cheques were sent on behalf of Ms Walsh to some of the signatories, the court has heard.
Ms Walsh also pleads David Walsh was offered the option of having €200,000 from the win or the former home of herself and his late father, and opted for the house.
Mr Walsh denies this. The transfer of the house, valued at €135,000, was completed in December 2011.
Giving evidence on the fourth day of the action on Friday, Ms Giblin said notes of conversations she had with her clients did not record that David Walsh was to be given Peter and Mary Walsh’s former home as a result of the Lotto win.
She told Dervla Browne SC, for Mr Walsh, the Lotto win was not mentioned to her when instructing the couple about the property transfer.
Not initially happy
Peter Walsh wished his son David to get the property, and Mary Walsh, while not initially happy with that proposal, agreed to those wishes, Ms Giblin said.
Ms Giblin agreed a sworn statement filed on Mary Walsh’s behalf to Revenue in 2012 so she could extract probate did not include details such as the number of Peter Walsh’s children or about joint bank accounts of the couple.
Ms Giblin was also asked about an inland revenue affidavit signed by Ms Walsh after the death of Peter Walsh to obtain €50,000 in a bank account in Peter Walsh’s name.
Ms Giblin agreed, following instructions from Ms Walsh, that certain matters were omitted, including that Peter Walsh had four children from his previous marriage, and details about assets they had held jointly.
The details were “not material” because Peter Walsh left everything in his will to his wife, she said.
Cross-examined by Michael Delaney SC, for Ms Walsh, Ms Giblin denied she advised Mary Walsh to leave out various details.
Omitted certain things
Counsel said it was Ms Walsh’s case she acted on Ms Giblin’s advice when she omitted certain things from the inland revenue form.
Ms Giblin said, after giving a person advice on such matters, it was up to them what they put on the form.
In reply to Mr Justice Richard Humphreys, Ms Giblin accepted she ticked a box on the form "knowing it was a lie" and agreed Mary Walsh knew that as well.
Asked by the judge if she knew lying on affidavit “is the offence of perjury”, Ms Giblin replied: “Yes”.
The case continues next week.