The High Court has refused Mary Walsh’s application for permission to continue negligence proceedings against An Post National Lottery Company, which was in voluntary liquidation. The ruling applies only to that company; Ms Walsh remains at large in her case against the other defendants.
Ms Walsh won about €3.389 million in a lottery draw in January 2011. She has said that a National Lottery representative, identified in the judgment as Mr Hughes, advised her to put intended gift recipients’ names on the back of the ticket to avoid tax. She denied that doing so created a syndicate entitled to shares of the winnings.
In separate proceedings brought by her stepson, David Walsh, a High Court judge found in 2017 that it had not been established on the balance of probabilities that Mr Hughes gave the alleged advice. The Court of Appeal later allowed an appeal by consent and set aside the earlier orders. The judgment in the present application records that history.
Ms Walsh had issued negligence proceedings in December 2016 against An Post, An Post National Lottery Company and Premier Lotteries Ireland DAC. The lottery company had entered voluntary liquidation in October 2016. Under section 678 of the Companies Act 2014, proceedings against a company in voluntary liquidation require court leave. The High Court heard the application for that leave, alongside requests concerning the title of the proceedings and the validity of service.
The judge noted that the proposed negligence claim against all three defendants was based on the allegation that Mr Hughes gave the advice. Although whether that advice amounted to negligence had not been decided, the judge concluded that its nature had already been determined in the earlier proceedings. Permitting the claim against the lottery company to continue would require the issue to be litigated again and would amount to an abuse of process.
The court therefore refused leave under section 678 and refused the other reliefs sought. It did not decide whether leave in a voluntary liquidation could be granted retrospectively, or whether different considerations apply to voluntary liquidations. The judge said those questions did not need to be decided. The court left costs and any further orders for a later hearing.