€500,000 legal bill for loser in €1.6m Lotto jackpot row
Related Articles
A MAN who took a marathon legal battle to claim a share of a €1.57m Lotto windfall has instead been left with a massive €500,000 court bill.
The High Court earlier ruled that Martin Horan, of Carragown, Bohola, Castlebar, Co Mayo, was entitled to a one-fifth share of the winning Lotto draw which was held on January 6, 2001, when the jackpot was €1,577,578.
However, the four members of the winning Lotto syndicate yesterday succeeded in their Supreme Court appeal, which found Mr Horan was not entitled to a one-fifth share of their €1.57m prize.
Mr Horan was also ordered to pay the legal costs of the case, which are believed to be around €500,000.
Mr Horan brought High Court proceedings alleging he was excluded from the winning syndicate by its four members -- Frank O'Reilly, a publican, of O'Reilly's pub, Ballyvary, Castlebar, Mayo; Michael McHale, a farmer of Curranee, Ballyvary; John Joyce, a taxi driver of Keelogue, Ballyvary; and Seamus O'Brien, also a taxi driver, of Ballyvary.
In December 2004, the High Court ruled Mr Horan was entitled to a one-fifth share based on the fact that an oral agreement had been entered into in early 1999 by the five.
The High Court also found that Mr O'Brien, the organiser of the syndicate, had "carried" the arrears that had built up from Mr Horan until October 2000.
Under the agreement, each syndicate member was to contribute IR£3 weekly, which meant IR£7.50 would be invested in each of the twice-a-week draws.
In their appeal, the four had argued that Mr Horan was removed from the syndicate in October 2000, months before the win, because he was in arrears of contributions.
He had, it was also claimed, told the syndicate organiser, Seamus O'Brien, to "f...off" when he approached him in a bar asking him to pay arrears.
Mr Horan had denied he had made such comments to Mr O'Brien, claiming he had always paid in lump sums in arrears and had never been removed from the syndicate.
Upholding the appeal yesterday by the four other syndicate members, Mr Justice Nial Fennelly said it did not seem to him that there was any doubt, under the original agreement, that each member was to pay his contribution twice weekly to the organiser Mr O'Brien.
It was not part of the agreement that individual members could pay in arrears and still remain a member. If it was part of the agreement, Mr O'Brien would have to have paid for the tickets for all members out of his own pocket, the judge said.
The only real question was whether the parties agreed to vary their original agreement that Mr Horan would remain in the syndicate and be entitled to a share of the winnings even though he was in arrears for an indefinite period.
While Mr O'Brien had the authority to carry out "all practical matters" in relation to the syndicate, it did not extend to varying the terms of the original oral contract.
"I am satisfied that it would not be obvious to any innocent bystander that such an obligation was imposed on Mr O'Brien on behalf of the other syndicate members", the judge said.
The judge said he did not think that Mr O'Brien, as organiser, was under any legal obligation to Mr Horan to continue to purchase tickets for him.
The fact that only IR£6 was invested in the winning draw, rather than IR£7.50, had Mr Horan been in it, strongly indicates that Mr O'Brien bought tickets for four and not five members of the syndicate, the judge said.
The original agreement clearly permitted only those syndicate members who had paid their contributions to share in winnings. Mr O'Brien did not have authority to vary the agreement and any toleration of arrears due by Mr Horan did not have the effect of varying the agreement.
It could not be done without the agreement of the other members of the syndicate and therefore Mr Horan was not a member of it on the date of the winning draw, the judge concluded.
- Tim Healy
