Lotto syndicate wins court victory over fifth member

FOUR members of a winning Lotto syndicate have won their Supreme Court appeal against a previous order that another man, who was in arrears on his contributions, is entitled to a one-fifth share of their €1.57 million prize.

The appeal was against a High Court ruling that Martin Horan, of Carragown, Bohola, Castlebar, Co Mayo, was entitled to a one-fifth share of the winning Lotto draw of January 6, 2001, when the jackpot was €1,577,578.

Mr Horan was also ordered to pay the legal costs of the case, believed to be about €500,000.

Mr Horan alleged he was excluded from the winning syndicate by four members of it — Frank O’Reilly, a publican, of O’Reilly’s pub, Ballyvary, Castlebar, Mayo; 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 December 2004, the High Court ruled Mr Horan was entitled to a one-fifth share based on the fact that an oral agreement had been entered into in early 1999 by the five. The High Court also found that Mr O’Brien, the organiser of the syndicate, had “carried” the arrears that had built up from Mr Horan until October 2000.

Under the agreement, each syndicate member was to contribute £3 weekly, which meant £7.50 would be invested in each of the twice-a-week draws.

In their appeal, the four had argued Mr Horan was removed from the syndicate in October 2000, months before the win, because he was in arrears of contributions. He had, it was also claimed, told the syndicate organiser, Seamus O’Brien, to “f**k off” when approached in a bar asking him to pay arrears.

Mr Horan had denied he had made such comments to Mr O’Brien, claiming he had always paid in lump sums in arrears and had never been removed from the syndicate.

Upholding the appeal yesterday by the four other syndicate members, Mr Justice Nial Fennelly, !presiding in the three-judge Supreme Court, said it did not seem to him that there was any doubt, under the original agreement, that each member was to pay his contribution twice weekly to the organiser Mr O’Brien.

It was not part of the agreement that individual members could pay in arrears and still remain in. If it was part of the agreement, Mr O’Brien would have to have paid for the tickets for all members out of his own pocket, the judge said.

The only real question was whether the parties agreed to vary their original agreement that Mr Horan would remain in the syndicate and be entitled to a share of the winnings even though he was in arrears for an indefinite period.

While Mr O’Brien had the authority to carry out “all practical matters” in relation to the syndicate, it did not extend to varying the terms of the original oral contract. “I am satisfied that it would not be obvious to any innocent bystander that such an obligation was imposed on Mr O’Brien on behalf of the other syndicate members,” said the judge.

The judge said he did not think Mr O’Brien, as organiser, was under any legal obligation to Mr Horan to continue to purchase tickets for him.

The fact that only £6 was invested in the winning draw, rather than £7.50, had Mr Horan been in it, strongly indicates that Mr O’Brien bought tickets for four and not five members of the syndicate, said the judge.