Lotto row: Father ‘wished son to get house’

A solicitor who represented a woman being sued over a one-sixth share of a €3.38m Lotto win has told the High Court that there was no mention to her that a house was being transferred to her client’s stepson instead of cash from the windfall.

Solicitor Aileen Giblin of Jack Duncan and Co solicitors said the firm had acted for the late Peter Walsh and his wife Mary, who is being sued by her stepson David Walsh, in relation to the acquisition of a new house and the transfer of their previous home to David Walsh following the windfall.

It had also acted in regards to the late Peter Walsh’s estate and will following his death in December 2011.

David Walsh, 52, Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe, Co Galway, has sued his stepmother and claims he is entitled to a €560,000 share of the €3.38m Lotto win of January 22, 2011. The claim is denied.

Giving evidence, Ms Giblin said notes of conversations she had with her clients did not record that David Walsh was to be given his father and stepmother’s former home at Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe as a result of the Lotto win.

In reply to Dervla Brown, counsel for Mr Walsh, Ms Giblin said the win was not mentioned to her when she was instructing Peter Walsh on the property transfer.

She said it was the late Peter Walsh’s wish that David Walsh was to get the property, and Mary Walsh, 65, Perssepark, Ballinasloe, who she said was initially unhappy with that proposal, had agreed to those wishes.

Ms Walsh claims David Walsh was offered the option of having €200,000 from the Lotto win or the former home of herself and his late father at Knocknagreena and opted for the house. Mr Walsh denies that.

The transfer of the property, which has been valued at €135,000, was completed in December 2011.

Ms Giblin accepted that a sworn statement filed on Mary Walsh’s behalf to revenue in 2012 was done so she could extract probate did not include details including the number of Peter Walsh’s children or details about joint bank accounts they had held together.

Ms Giblin was also questioned about an inland revenue affidavit signed by Ms Walsh after the death of her husband. The form, which could be viewed by anyone claiming an interest in the late Mr Walsh’s estate, was completed in order to obtain €50,000 in a bank account in Peter Walsh’s name.

Ms Giblin accepted that following instructions from Ms Walsh, certain matters were omitted, including that Peter Walsh had four children from his previous marriage and details about assets they had held jointly.

The details were “not material” because Peter Walsh had left everything in his will, which was signed in 2007, to his wife.

Under cross-examination by Michael Delaney, counsel for Ms Walsh, Ms Giblin denied advising Mary Walsh to leave out various details.

It is Ms Walsh’s case that she had acted on Ms Giblin’s advice when she omitted certain things from theform.

Ms Giblin said that after giving a person advice it was up to them what they put on the form.

In reply to Mr Justice Richard Humphrey, Ms Giblin accepted she had ticked a box “knowing it was a lie”. Ms Giblin also agreed Mary Walsh knew that as well.

Ms Giblin also agreed that she had facilitated the taking of the statement by completing it even though she knew it was a lie.

When asked by the judge if she knew that lying on affidavit “is the offence of perjury?”, Ms Giblin replied “yes”.