A woman being sued by her stepson over a lotto jackpot win has told the High Court she was the sole owner of the winning ticket.
However it emerged today that internal National Lottery emails described the winners as a syndicate.
Mary Walsh of Perrsepark, Ballinasloe, Co Galway is being sued by her stepson David Walsh of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe.
Mr Walsh claims he is entitled to more than €500,000 from a €3.3 million jackpot won in January 2011.
In evidence this morning, Ms Walsh said she told the National Lottery she was the sole winner of the ticket but was advised to let others sign it if she intended to give them cash gifts.
She said she was told to do this so the recipients could avoid liability for gift tax.
However during cross-examination it emerged that two internal National Lottery emails sent the day after she contacted the office described the winners as a "seven person syndicate".
Ms Walsh was also sent information by the lottery with instructions for syndicates on how to claim the prize.
It was put to her that she must have known based on those instructions that anyone who signed the back of the ticket was factually and legally deemed to be a co-owner of ticket.
She agreed and said, "yes, I knew that".
Earlier in her evidence she said she regularly did the lotto for herself using her own set of numbers.
Her husband Peter separately played using his own numbers and both were members of a work based syndicate.
She said she bought the tickets for all three each week and discovered her ticket was the winner late on a Sunday night.
She said she phoned the National Lottery for advice the next morning and she and her husband signed the back of the ticket because they were going to share it.
She said the ticket was later lodged with a bank for safe keeping until the following Wednesday.
She said after discussing her win with her husband they decided to give gifts to her two sons, his nephew Kevin Black and his son David Walsh.
She said David Walsh was allowed to sign the back of the ticket on the Wednesday morning but later that afternoon decided he would take the family home in lieu of a cash gift.
She said all those who had signed the ticket also signed forms used by the National Lottery for syndicates, appointing her to collect the winnings on their behalf.
After the money was lodged in a bank account, various cheques were sent on behalf of Ms Walsh to others who has signed the back of the ticket including a €300,000 cheque to her son Jason; one for Stg£380,000 (about €456,000) to her son Tony, who lives in Wales and one for €100,000 to Kevin Black.
She said David Walsh never mentioned anything about being entitled to a share in the lotto win until after her husband had died and he was making enquiries about his will.
She said she had been left everything in his will and all property was in their joint names.
Late husband's children omitted from Revenue document, court hears
In cross examination she said she "did not know" why she did not say in an inland revenue affidavit, that her late husband had four surviving children from his previous marriage.
She also said the reason she had left out this detail is because they were not mentioned in the will.
She also said she left out details of joint bank accounts based on legal advice that they were irrelevant and she was not liable for tax on any of them.
Under sustained cross examination Mary Walsh also admitted that she lied in a sworn statement submitted to Revenue after her husband's death.
Ms Walsh at first said the fact that Mr Walsh had four surviving children from his previous marriage was left out on the form was an error.
However it was put to her that last week in evidence her solicitor said she had given a specific instruction to leave out that detail.
Senior counsel for David Walsh, Dervla Browne said if it was deliberately left out therefore it was a deliberate lie on oath.
Ms Walsh agreed that it was, when "put like that".
It was also put to her that details of joint accounts were deliberately left out of the same statement in order to hide them from David Walsh.
Ms Walsh said she understood the accounts were "irrelevant" because no tax was owed on them and she did not have anything to hide.
She said Mr Walsh's children would have known what money they had because it was "common knowledge".
However when her evidence resumed after lunch, Mary Walsh then said her solicitor had given her the "option of filling in or not filling in" certain details on the form and she did not consider that a lie.
She denied that the motivation behind leaving out certain details was to hide from his children what money Peter Walsh had when he died.
Dervla Browne put it to her that notes taken by her solicitor Aileen Giblin warned of "a problem if the Walsh family go digging as no doubt they will, they will get their hands on a copy of the inland revenue affidavit and the details of all the money..."
Ms Walsh replied: "If something was omitted it was done in error but it was not a lie. I'm having problems understanding."
She also denied that she ever said she was "sickened by David Walsh's attitude" as recorded in her solicitor's notes.
She agreed however that she had reservations about giving David the house and did not feel he deserved it because he had been estranged from his father for about year before that and only resumed contact three weeks before the lotto win because he was ill.
She said she went along with her husband's wishes to give him the house and because he was not well she was not going to go against him.
Ms Browne also put it to Ms Walsh that nowhere in the solicitor's note was it suggested that the house was in lieu of the lotto money.
Ms Walsh agreed it was not noted but said she had said it to her solicitor that this was the case.
It was put to her that Ms Giblin said in evidence she had never been told this.
Ms Browne said in the "entire file" there was no mention of this.
She was also asked why in July 2013 when an important solicitor's letter was being sent to David Walsh in response to his claim for the lotto money there was no mention of him being given the house in lieu.
Ms Walsh said she did not know she had to raise it.
The case continues tomorrow.
