The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on an appeal by four members of a winning Lotto syndicate from Co Mayo against a court order that another man is entitled to a one-fifth share of their €2 million prize.
The three judge court heard submissions in the appeal today against a High Court ruling that Martin Horan, of Carragown, Bohola, Castlebar, is entitled to being paid €400,000 of the Lotto winnings.
Mr Justice Hugh Geoghegan, presiding at the court and sitting with Mr Justice Nial Fennelly and Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan said the court would reserve judgment in light of the complex evidence in the case.
Mr Horan had brought his High Court proceedings alleging he was excluded from the winning syndicate by four members of it - Frank O'Reilly, a publican, of O'Reilly's pub, Ballyvary, Castlebar; Michael McHale, a farmer of Curranee, Ballyvary; John
Joyce, a taxi driver of Keelogue, Ballyvary, and Seamus O'Brien also a taxi driver of Ballyvary.
In his High Court decision in December 2004, Mr Justice Frank Clarke ruled Mr Horan was entitled to a one-fifth share of the prize and also awarded costs estimated at some €100,000 to Mr Horan against the other four members of the syndicate.
The four had argued Mr Horan was removed from the syndicate in October 2000, some months before the jackpot win of January 6th 2001, because he was in arrears of contributions and had told the syndicate organiser, Seamus O'Brien, to "f... off" when Mr O'Brien approached him in a bar asking him to pay arrears.
Mr O'Brien said he just walked away but subsequently reduced the number of people in the syndicate to those who were paying him up front and on a regular basis.
Mr Horan had denied he had made such comments to Mr O'Brien, claimed he had always paid in lump sums in arrears and had never been removed from the syndicate.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Clarke said he accepted Mr Horan's evidence as broadly correct. He found the syndicate operated by vesting in Mr O'Brien the authority to carry out all practical matters and that Mr O'Brien had permitted a system whereby
Mr Horan was, within reason, allowed to fall into arrears on the basis he could be trusted to pay any sum of arrears.
If there was a definitive end to Mr Horan's involvement in the syndicate it would seem likely something would have had to be done but it seemed no attempt was made to deal with the earlier winnings at all, the judge said.
He said there were no facts by which it could be inferred Mr Horan had refused to pay his arrears and thereby removed himself from the syndicate. It was reasonable to conclude he remained a member of the syndicate up to the day of the jackpot win and was entitled to his share in the winnings.
In their appeal, the four syndicate members argued the trial judge erred in finding Mr Horan was a member of the syndicate when, they contend, he had not contributed anything to the purchase of the winning ticket and had not arranged for any contribution to be made on his behalf to that purchase.
They also submitted the trial judge was wrong to conclude there was a contract between Mr Horan and themselves under which Mr Horan could make payments in arrears. They said the trial judge should have taken into account that Mr Horan's case advanced at trial was different from that pleaded and that the trial judge had said he regarded some of Mr Horan's evidence as being unclear to the point of being "exasperating".
