A man who claimed he was entitled to £250,000 of a share of a Lotto Jackpot yesterday lost his case in the High Court.
Mr Stephen Carroll claimed he was entitled to half the jackpot - because one of his playslips with winning numbers was not entered in the Lotto draw by a post office counterhand. The £506,000 went to one winner.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, in a reserved judgment, dismissed Mr Carroll's action and allowed costs against him in favour of the National Lottery. But he put a stay on the order for costs in the event of a Supreme Court appeal.
The judge held that, even if the agent (post office owner) or a member of her staff could be regarded as acting for An Post National Lottery at the time of the negligence, the company was not vicariously liable.
Mr Carroll of Brittas, Co Dublin, claimed he submitted 32 panels of numbers with eight playslips worth £16 at Cork Street post office, Dublin, on January 9th, 1993.
One playslip with two panels was not entered while another playslip with two panels was entered twice, it was submitted: If the playslip with the winning numbers had been entered, Mr Carroll claimed, he would have been entitled to 50 per cent of the jackpot.
Mr Carroll admitted he had not checked the tickets and had not noticed the error until two days later.
The judge said that at the bottom of the playslip was a blue arrow and underneath printed in red the words "See instructions on reverse side".
These stated: "Players acknowledge the Lotto agents are acting on their behalf in entering playslips into the National Lottery computer system. The National Lottery accepts no responsibility for tickets cancelled in error or where the apparent numbers on a ticket disagree with numbers on file at the central computer for that ticket."
It was also stated: "By playing the game, a player agrees to abide by the National Lottery rules and regulations in effect at the time the play is made."
There was no notice in the post office displaying National Lottery rules. The agent had the rules on the premises at the time and these were available for inspection. Mr Carroll did not request them.
The judge said he could not accept Mr Carroll's evidence that he was not aware there were rules on the back of the playslip. Mr Carroll agreed he was aware there were rules regulating the Lottery. He must have seen the words "See instructions on reverse side".
The playslip which the counterhand had failed to enter into the terminal and which held the winning numbers would not have been accepted by the terminal because one panel had seven numbers marked on it and so Mr Carroll would not have received a ticket for it.
Mr Justice Costello said the risks involved in holding the National Lottery in the absence of such "exemptions" (stated on the back of the playslips) would leave the company open to fraudulent claims. It was entitled to reasonable protection from such claims.