High Court to rule on family Lotto winnings row

A High Court judge has been urged to consider the contents of a woman’s will when deciding who is entitled to a half share of…

A High Court judge has been urged to consider the contents of a woman’s will when deciding who is entitled to a half share of her €450,000 Lotto win.

Kay Ellison won the money a year before her death.

Mr Justice Eamon De Valera was urged to consider Ms Ellison was “speaking from the grave” through her will in that she did not bequeath €225,000 to her nephew, taxi driver Gary Ellison.

Ms Ellison, who died single in April 2007, left the bulk of her estate to her brother Liam Ellison (79) who is disputing Gary’s claim of entitlement to a half share of the €450,000 win of January 2006.

READ MORE

Gary Ellison has brought High Court proceedings seeking a declaration he is entitled to a half share. The case was heard earlier this year by the High Court sitting in Tralee and was adjourned to yesterday in Dublin for legal submissions.

After hearing the submissions of both sides, Mr Justice De Valera said he would give his decision in the next law term.

In the case, retired company director Liam Ellison, of Templeville Drive, Dublin, claims he and his sister were part of an 18-year syndicate and it was “crystal clear” he was joint owner of the winning ticket.

Gary Ellison claims he was also in a syndicate with Kay and has argued Liam had not provided any evidence to show Gary’s syndicate did not exist.

The court previously heard Liam had not gone to collect the winnings with Kay because he had an important appointment on the day she decided to go. Gary had driven her in his taxi to the Lotto offices where they both signed the winning ticket.

Today, Cormac Ó Dúlacháin BL, for Gary Ellison, said the existence of one syndicate did not exclude another. The fact only €1,000 was left by Kay in her will for Gary did not mean Gary was “singled out” because the same amount was left to her other nephews and nieces.

The most important feature of this case was Gary had signed the Lotto ticket, a “definitive element” in any contract, counsel said. None of the evidence dislodged Gary’s claim over the winning ticket by virtue of him signing it.

Patrick Hunt SC, for Liam, said Kay had been described during the court case as a religious person and a woman of high moral principle. It was inexplicable she would effectively “double cross” her nephew by doing Gary out of what he was now claiming to be his legal entitlement.

“It simply does not stack up,” counsel said. By not putting such a provision for the half share in her will, “she is speaking from the grave”.

The court previously heard Liam and his sister were very close. Each Saturday she would call to his school uniform factory in Dublin’s Camden Street, where she would order in lunch from the pub across the street. He would give her €8 and she would buy two €4 tickets in the Spar shop and give one to him.

On the night of January 28th, 2006, she telephoned him to say: “We’ve won the Lotto.” He immediately went around to her house and told her not to do anything with the ticket until he got advice from their accountant. He denied Gary was at her house that night.

Liam said he was meant to accompany Kay to Lotto headquarters on February 17th, but she got her dates mixed up and insisted on going on the 16th by taxi, a day when Liam had an important appointment. Liam said he did not know Gary had gone in his taxi to Lotto headquarters to collect the winnings with Kay and he did not believe Gary had a syndicate with Kay “in any shape or form”.