A High Court case by a 52-year-old man who is suing his stepmother for a share in a lottery jackpot will resume tomorrow after evidence was suspended today to allow for legal submissions.
David Walsh, of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe, Co Galway, has taken the action against his stepmother Mary Walsh, from Perrsepark, Ballinasloe.
He claims he is entitled to more than half a million euro from a €3.3m jackpot won in January 2011. His signature was among six which were written on the back of the winning ticket.
Mr Walsh told the court he signed the ticket in the presence of his late father and stepmother and was promised a share.
However his father died in December 2011 and he says his stepmother did not give him the money. Ms Walsh says he was given a house instead of the money.
Lawyers for Ms Walsh had spent this afternoon making legal submissions to the court during which they claim Mr Walsh was attempting to introduce new elements to his case which were not contained in his original statement of claim.
They argued he was not entitled to do so.
Senior Counsel Michael Delany said Mr Walsh's original case claimed his late father was the owner of the ticket but he was now claiming his stepmother was a part owner of the ticket.
Mr Walsh's lawyers argued that no new or inconsistent claims had been introduced to the case. Senior Counsel Dervla Browne said it was never claimed that Mr Walsh's father was the sole owner of the ticket, rather he was the purchaser. She said under rules of the national lottery the effect of the signatures on the back of the ticket meant they were all owners of the ticket and entitled to the winnings.
However, Mr Delany said Mr Walsh was claiming that a syndicate or trust was created by his father after the lottery win and not before.
Therefore, he said, they must have originally claimed that his father was the owner of the ticket because under the same lottery rules, before a signature is placed on a winning ticket the bearer is the deemed to be the owner.
Mr Justice Humphreys ruled against the defendants, describing the argument as "misconceived, spurious and illogical on a number of grounds".
He said it had not been claimed that Mr Walsh's father was the owner of the ticket, merely the purchaser. The judge also said Ms Walsh's lawyers "sat on a procedural time bomb" until the second day of the hearing when the issue could have been raised before the case opened.
He said "sterile arguments about what was and was not pleaded" were not the best use of the court's time.
The case continues tomorrow