Step-mother ordered to pay step-son a sixth share of lottery win

Dispute over lottery jackpot – breach of contract – trusts - prize money was €3,389,794 - son of the late Peter Walsh who died testate taking action against wife of Peter Walsh for share of winnings - six persons signed the back of the winning ticket: the deceased, the defendant, the plaintiff, Kevin Black, Anthony Daly and Jason Daly; - same six persons signed the National Lottery prize winner claim form – syndicate - lottery instructions for syndicates state that all members of the syndicate must sign the back of the ticket and, as only one cheque is issued, that the syndicate must nominate one person to receive the prize-winning cheque - nominated person completes the claim form giving full details, and the declaration form is proof that all members of the syndicate are deemed to be part-owners of the winning ticket and that their share of the prize is tax-free in accordance with the National Lottery Act 1986 – wife was nominated as the person to collect the prize – she contends that she was the sole winner and that the other signatories were added to the ticket on the advice of the lottery to ensure that any gifts she might see fit to make to them were exempt from tax - made various distributions to the other signatories - the house belonging to Peter Walsh was conveyed to the son - wife contends that the son had been put to his election of a choice of either €200,000 out of the winnings, or getting the house – was the wife the sole purchaser of the ticket – Court satisfied she was an evasive and unreliable witness – Court rejected the evidence that she was the sole purchaser and owner – revenue problems - her idea of a fair, proper and appropriate distribution of the €3.3million was to give less than €300,000 to her husband’s blood relatives while €3 million ended up with her and her blood relatives or at her disposal – wife had a history of playing the lotto with the deceased as a joint exercise - when it came to the winning ticket this was converted in her mind and in her evidence into her sole win – son gave evidence of the significance of the winning numbers to the deceased - she made a special point of instructing her solicitors so the cheque was in her sole name and that she had a photocopy of it, as if this was a proof of title or a proof of some point in her favour - accepted that the tickets were bought from money deriving from joint funds of herself and the deceased - res gestae statement - deceased told him that he had won the lotto - explains subsequent dealings discussions and celebrations in the aftermath of that statement - Court held that on the balance of probabilities that the evidence of the son is honest and generally reliable - did the deceased have discussions with his son to the effect that they would share a lottery winning - in effect a pre-existing contractual arrangement - deceased intended in advance that any potential win would be for the benefit of his family members - the arraignment for subsequent signature of the ticket was simply a formalisation of that prior arrangement and intention - was the wife advised that anyone she wished to benefit by gift should sign the ticket in order to avoid capital acquisitions tax – Court did not consider that it has been established on the balance of probabilities that the Lottery actually gave any particular advice to the wife to the effect that she should put other persons on the back of the ticket to avoid the imposition of tax – was the son given the option of choosing €200,000 or the house - house was worth €135,00 - no apparent reason why he would do himself out of €65,00 – Court satisfied that there was no agreement whereby the plaintiff was offered or took the house in lieu of €200,000 as his share of the lottery win - was a syndicate created by the deceased or otherwise constituted conferring an entitlement on the plaintiff to a one-sixth share - litany of acts by the six signatories individually and collectively which were consistent with them forming, and holding themselves out as, a syndicate – Court concluded that the six persons did constitute themselves a syndicate by signing the ticket and the claim form and in their dealings with the lotto and indeed individually with the Revenue - did the deceased and wife acknowledge the son’s co-ownership of the ticket - by signing the claim form, the wife and the deceased acknowledged the son’s co-ownership of the winning ticket - accepted that the other signatories were co-owners in evidence – did the deceased create an express trust by his words and actions - evidence that the deceased informed the son that he would get his share and not have to worry about money was not challenged as to admissibility - satisfied as to the existence of a trust - did the signature on the ticket confer joint ownership - arising from the son’s discussions with the deceased regarding sharing winnings and from the dealings between the deceased and the son prior to the win being claimed, there was an express, or alternatively an implied, agreement that the son would receive a share equal to the share - follows on that the signature of the ticket by the son in the circumstances of this case conferred a one-sixth ownership – do the facts of the case give rise to a constructive trust - does public policy preclude the wife from relying on an intention to avoid tax as a basis for having been party to an arrangement whereby the plaintiff signed the ticket - does the wife’s conduct preclude her from denying the son’s part-ownership - would the son be unjustly enriched – Court satisfied on the evidence on the balance of probabilities that the intention was clearly to make an unconditional gift of the house – Court orders the wife to pay the son €564,065.66 - conduct of the wife - lottery winnings have not been fully accounted for - injunction to prevent the defendant from reducing her assets below the sum of €929,965.66 - €300,000 by way of an estimate of the costs in this court, and €65,000 by way of an estimate of 50% of the costs of an appeal.