Woman and stepson resolve row over share of €3.3m lotto jackpot

Mary Walsh had denied David Walsh (53) was entitled to €560,000 from 2011 win

Mary Walsh of Perssepark, Ballinasloe, Co Galway and David Walsh of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe. Photographs: Collins.
Mary Walsh of Perssepark, Ballinasloe, Co Galway and David Walsh of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe. Photographs: Collins.

A dispute between a woman and her stepson over a €3.3 million winning lottery ticket has been resolved, the Court of Appeal has heard.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys last year ruled that Mary Walsh (67) had to pay David Walsh €560,000 plus his legal costs after finding her stepson was a part owner of and entitled to a one-sixth share of a winning ticket purchased in Ballinasloe, Co Galway in January 2011.

Mrs Walsh appealed that decision, which was opposed.

Dervla Brown SC for Mr Walsh told Ms Justice Mary Irvine on Tuesday that the matter had been "resolved entirely". She said it was agreed that the appeal be allowed and the orders of the High Court should be vacated except for the order dismissing the defendant's counterclaim.

READ MORE

It was also agreed there would be no order for costs and the plaintiff’s High Court claim would be struck out. No other details of the settlement were in given to the court.

Signature

Mr Walsh (53), of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe, had sued Mrs Walsh, of Perrsepark, Ballinasloe, arguing that he was entitled to his share, approximately €560,000, on the grounds his signature was among six written on the back of the winning ticket.

He claimed his late father had told him, shortly after the win, that he would be looked after and would not have to worry about money again. However, he claimed he did not get his share.

Mrs Walsh, who was married to David’s late father, Peter Walsh, who died in December 2011, denied this and had argued that the ticket was hers.

She claimed that David Walsh was offered and accepted her and her late husband’s house in lieu of €200,000 from the win. David Walsh denied that.

In his judgment following a seven-day hearing last year, Mr Justice Humphreys rejected Mrs Walsh arguments and found in favour of David Walsh.

He said Mrs Walsh’s evidence was inconsistent, “not credible”, contained “self-contradiction” and was “unreliable”.