The High Court has continued orders freezing the assets of a Galway woman who lost her case in a dispute over lottery winnings.
Last week Mary Walsh was ordered to pay her stepson more than half a million euro plus costs after the court ruled he was part owner of a €3.3m winning ticket.
David Walsh, of Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe in Co Galway won his case against his stepmother Mary Walsh from Perrsepark, Ballinasloe.
His signature was among six that were written on the back of the winning ticket.
His stepmother had claimed he was given a house instead but the judge said he did not believe her evidence.
After finding against Mrs Walsh last Thursday, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys placed a stay on the order pending any appeal she may lodge.
He also ordered her not to reduce her assets below €929,000 after lawyers for David Walsh expressed concern that assets could be dissipated.
This morning the judge continued those orders, saying he was of the view there was as risk of dissipation.
The judge said it was not necessary to establish intention to do so. He said an exception could be made for living expenses for the next week.
A full hearing of the injuction application to continue the freezing orders will take place next week.
Last Thursday, after a seven-day hearing, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said he believed the evidence of Mr Walsh over that of his stepmother whose evidence he described as unreliable consisting of "ducking and weaving and self contradiction".
He rejected Mrs Walsh's evidence that the reason she had allowed others to sign the back of the ticket was to enable them to avoid gift tax.
He said five of the six signatories would not have been liable for gift tax.
He also rejected her evidence that David Walsh chose to take the family home valued at €135,000 instead of €200,00 cash.
He said it did not make sense that he would do himself out of €60,000. He ruled that the signing of the ticket was the result of a family agreement and by accepting the winnings on behalf of the group, Mary Walsh had held the money in trust for the others.
He found that the transfer of the house to Mr Walsh had nothing to do with the Lotto win.
The seven-day hearing was told Mr Walsh's signature was among six written on the back of the winning ticket.
He said he signed the ticket in the presence of his father and stepmother and was promised a share by his father.
However his father later became ill and died in December 2011 and he said his stepmother did not give him the money.
Legal documents concerning the house transfer contained no reference to it being in lieu of a cash gift. The solicitor who worked on the transfer also said it was never mentioned to her.
The court was told others who signed the back of the ticket were given large sums of money. Mrs Walsh's son Jason received €300,000 and her son Tony was given €456,000.
David Walsh's cousin Kevin Black was given €100,000.
Mary Walsh claimed in evidence that she told the National Lottery she was the sole owner of the ticket but was advised to let others sign it so they could avoid gift tax.
However internal lottery emails sent the day after she made contact described the winner as a syndicate.
Mary Walsh was also sent an email with instructions for syndicates on how to claim a prize.
Lawyers for Mr Walsh said the information from the National Lottery was clear. Anyone who signed the back of a ticket and the syndicate claim forms was legally and factually deemed to be a co-owner of the ticket, they said.
A retired claims manager with the National Lottery said it was possible he had given the advice as claimed by Mrs Walsh.
However he said he had no memory of the phone call with her and also agreed it was possible she told him a syndicate had won the prize.
During the hearing it also emerged that Mrs Walsh had made a false statement to Revenue after her husband's death in which she omitted the fact that her late-husband had four surviving children. She also left out details of joint accounts she held with her late husband.
Her solicitor at the time Aileen Giblin said these details were immaterial because Mrs Walsh was the sole beneficiary of her husband's will and all property and bank accounts except one were in their joint names, meaning everything, passed to her on his death.
However, it led to an exchange with Mr Justice Richard Humpreys who said both Mrs Walsh and Ms Giblin knew that the information in the sworn statement was a lie.
In her evidence Mrs Walsh denied that she had been trying to hide accounts from her stepchildren. She said she was acting on legal advice when she filled out the form and was given the option of "filling in or not filling in" certain details.
