€3.4million lottery winner seeks legal aid to fund appeal
She lost fight with stepson over his share
LOTTERY winner Mary Walsh, who lost a High Court battle to avoid paying her stepson his share of a disputed €3.4million jackpot, told a court she wants legal aid for her appeal as she has ‘no funds’.
Her lawyers are ‘significantly out of pocket’ since she lost her High Court battle, a judge was heard.
But they cannot be ‘forced’ to keep representing her while she pursues an appeal as ‘trust and confidence has broken down’, the Appeal Court ruled yesterday.
And Mrs Walsh told the court she is seeking legal aid for the appeal as she has ‘no funds’ to hire a new set of lawyers, having already paid her former ones almost €150,000.
But a judge told the mother-oftwo she may have to represent herself at her forthcoming appeal.
Mrs Walsh, a 66-year-old hairdresser, was sued by her stepson David Walsh at the start of this year for failing to distribute the proceeds of a 2011 ‘family syndicate’ Lotto win equally – and leaving Mr Walsh with nothing.
It emerged yesterday her lawyers originally agreed to fight the case on a ‘no win-no fee’ basis.
As revealed by the Irish Daily Mail, Mrs Walsh’s lawyers, Dublin firm Beauchamps, have been trying to part company with the Lotto winner since June.
When the case came before the Court of Appeal in July, Mrs Walsh told the court she was opposing the law firm’s bid to cut ties with her.
She claimed in court: ‘They [Beauchamps] already received €147,000 from me.’
Yesterday, barrister Darren Lehane, for Beauchamps, told the Court of Appeal the law firm should not have to engage in any ‘forced liaison’ with Mrs Walsh.
Asked by Judge Mary Irvine why she should force Beauchamps to keep representing her, Mrs Walsh said: ‘At this stage, there is no point forcing them to work for me.
‘This leaves me in a very difficult situation.
‘I don’t know what I can do next.’
She later added: ‘I don’t have any funds. All my assets are frozen.’
Mrs Walsh also revealed: ‘I have looked for legal aid, but they haven’t come back with a decision yet.’ She said that according to the Legal Aid Board, ‘I qualify financially.’ Judge Irvine told Mrs Walsh: ‘They [Beauchamps] say they are out of pocket and have expended a significant amount of money on your behalf.’ The judge later added: ‘They are significantly out of pocket – and would have to go further out of pocket if they were to take your appeal through this court.’ Judge Irvine told Mrs Walsh: ‘I’m very sympathetic but the law is against you.’ She then made an order allowing Beauchamps to come off record so they no longer have to represent Mrs Walsh. Judge Irvine told Mrs Walsh that she could opt to represent herself at the appeal.
The judge pointed out that, currently, claimants in one in every four civil cases are fighting their cases in court without any legal representation.
The judge also awarded costs against Mrs Walsh for the dispute with her lawyers.
Mrs Walsh declined to comment as she left the Four Courts complex.
Mr Walsh has been fighting his stepmother for his one-sixth share of the Lotto win through the courts since 2013.
In February, Mrs Walsh – who now lives in Perssepark in Ballinasloe, Co. Galway – was ordered to pay her stepson Mr Walsh €564,965 after a seven-day High Court hearing.
The High Court later froze all of her assets apart from her €233-aweek pension – although appeal judges later changed that to allow her to access some of her bank accounts.
In March, she sold her ‘lossmaking’ hairdressing business in Galway, a court heard.
As revealed by the Mail, Mrs Walsh first lodged an appeal in February. It will be heard in full in October 2018. In the meantime, she does not have to pay anything to Mr Walsh, of Knocknagreana, Ballinasloe.
The Walsh family’s controversial €12 ticket was sold on January 22, 2011, at Salmon’s Department Store in Main Street, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway.
Mrs Walsh collected the €3.38million winnings – but chose not to distribute equal €564,956 shares among the family members who had signed the back of the ticket.
€147,000 how much winner ‘has paid lawyers so far’