Setback for €3m Lotto winner’s bid to sue operators
A WOMAN who won more than € 3million on the Lotto, and was then taken to court by her stepson and his cousin for a share of the win, cannot sue the National Lottery operators at the time for negligence, the High Court has ruled.
Mary Walsh hit the jackpot i n January 2011, winning €3,389,000 with a €12 ticket bought in her local store.
Ms Walsh, of Ballinasloe, Co. Galway, claimed that she was advised by the National Lottery that if she wished to make a gift to any members of her family, without them being liable to tax, then she should print the names of the intended recipients on the back of the ticket.
She did so before she handed the winning ticket in.
Ms Walsh contended that she intended to give gifts to certain family members but not to form a syndicate between herself and five other people, which would entitle each to a one-sixth share.
Following the death of her husband Peter, his son David from a former marriage issued High Court proceedings, seeking his share of the Lotto winnings.
David Walsh won his case at the High Court, and his stepmother was ordered to pay him just under €565,000. However, Ms Walsh overturned that win in a settlement reached in the Court of Appeal in 2018.
David’s cousin, Kevin Black, has since also launched a case against her, claiming a share of the massive prize.
Meanwhile, in December 2016, Ms Walsh issued her own legal claim against An Post, An Post National Lottery Company and Premier Lotteries Ireland, claiming negligence regarding the advice she was given to write the other people’s names on her winning Lotto ticket.
She had to seek High Court approval to continue the case against An Post National Lottery Company, as it had been voluntarily placed into liquidation in 2014. It was wound up because the licence for operating the Lotto was awarded to Premier Lotteries Ireland, the judge said.
Judge Teresa Pilkington said she had reviewed the judgment given by Judge Richard Humphreys during the High Court case taken by Ms Walsh’s son-inlaw. She ruled that it would be an abuse of process for Ms Walsh to argue before the High Court for a second time that she had been given negligent advice by the Lotto operators. She said Judge Humphreys had ruled that it had not been established, on the balance of probabilities, that Eamon Hughes of the National Lottery gave any particular advice to the effect that she should put other persons on the back of the ticket to avoid the imposition of tax.
‘If no advices were found to have been furnished, then it is difficult to see how such advices could constitute negligence,’ Judge Pilkington said.
‘It has already been determined’
She added: ‘In my view, the nature of those advices has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction… Accordingly, i n my view, it would constitute an abuse of process to permit these proceedings to continue.’
However, she said Ms Walsh was free to continue her case against the other two defendants, An Post and Premier Lotteries Ireland, should she wish to do so.