Stepson seeking share of Lotto win takes High Court case

Ballinsasloe man claims he is entitled to a one-sixth share of ticket bought in 2011

David Walsh has sued Mary Walsh claiming he is entitled to a share of about €560,000 of a Lotto win. Mrs Walsh denies he is so entitled. File photograph: istock
David Walsh has sued Mary Walsh claiming he is entitled to a share of about €560,000 of a Lotto win. Mrs Walsh denies he is so entitled. File photograph: istock

A dispute between a woman and her stepson over a one-sixth share of a €3.38 million winning Lotto ticket has come before the High Court.

David Walsh has sued Mary Walsh claiming he is entitled to a share of about €560,000. Mrs Walsh denies he is so entitled.

The ticket at issue was one of two winning tickets for a Lotto jackpot of approximately €6.7 million drawn on January 22nd, 2011.

The €12 ticket at the centre of the legal dispute was sold at Salmons Department Store, Main Street, Ballinasloe. The other winning ticket was sold in Caherciveen, Co Kerry.

READ SOME MORE

The dispute was briefly mentioned before Mr Justice Paul Gilligan at the High Court on Thursday.

The court heard Mr Walsh claims he was one of six people that signed the back of the winning ticket and is entitled to one sixth of the prize money.

Mr Walsh, Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe, is seeking various orders and declarations including he is entitled to a sum of €564,000 from the Lotto prize and directing Ms Walsh to pay that to him.

Trustee claim

He claims she received the winnings as trustee for him.

Represented by Dervla Browne SC, he argues Ms Walsh and the estate of his late father Peter, who died in 2011, holds the amount sought in trust for him.

Ms Walsh, a business woman of Perssepark, Ballinasloe, denies the claims.

Claire Bruton BL, for Ms Walsh, said her client argued the winning ticket belonged to her, not her stepson.

Following the win, Mr Walsh was gifted his late father’s family home but he was not entitled to the proceeds of the Lotto win, it is argued.

Mr Justice Gilligan fixed a date in November to hear the dispute and directed that any pretrial motions, including for discovery of relevant materials in advance of the hearing, can be mentioned in a month’s time.