A Melbourne, Austrailia, accountant has won his share of an $867,000 Tattslotto first division prize, three years after he was dropped from a 10-member Big Kahuna house syndicate.
A "thrilled" Danny Watson and his legal team beamed outside court after a magistrate found a newsagent and his company guilty of false and misleading conduct over the handling of the syndicate.
The magistrate said Mr Watson, a regular participant in the Fitzroy agency's system 17 entry, was entitled to damages of $86,700 — his 10 per cent share of the prize — less the $741.95 ticket cost.
Mr Watson had bought stationery and newspapers at Mark Pezzin's outlet and had joined 14 of his lottery draws over several years before super draw 2847 on November 1, 2008.
The Melbourne Magistrates' Court heard last year before Friday's judgment that sometimes Mr Watson did not pay Mr Pezzin before a Saturday draw, but did so the following Monday. On another occasion, when the syndicate won nothing, Mr Watson still felt obliged to later pay.
After Mr Pezzin phoned him two weeks before the super draw to test his interest in joining the Big Kahuna, Mr Watson attended the agency where he said he wanted a share and Mr Pezzin "pencilled" him in on the syndicate sheet.
The day before the draw, Mr Watson arrived at the agency intending to pay, but left after finding Mr Pezzin was absent.
On the Saturday, Mr Pezzin sold the share to another customer as Mr Watson did not show. The following Monday, Mr Watson appeared at the outlet and told Mr Pezzin: "I suppose I owe you some money [for my share]?"
When told no, he asked why. Mr Pezzin said he had been unable to contact him and that he did not want a debt.
Told that the syndicate had won first division, Mr Watson responded: "Then you are going to have problems."
Mr Goldberg was satisfied that Mr Pezzin had encouraged Mr Watson to enter the draw and his intended participation was recorded. He said the most compelling evidence was Mr Watson attending the agency after the draw, ready to pay despite not knowing if the syndicate had won or not.
Mr Goldberg found Mr Pezzin (who had denied liability) and Namberry Craft Pty Ltd guilty of false and misleading conduct and awarded damages.
"We're thrilled," Mr Watson's solicitor Rose Mary Brondolino and barrister Lachlan Watts later told The Age. Mr Pezzin did not return calls from The Age.
I think the court ruled correctly in this case.
I run group lotteries at work, the on again off again players are discouraged. This case is different. I also hold every bet/lottery slip from week to week to show a history of who played and who didn't.
What ever happened 2 first come (with D money) first served?
Would Mr.Watson have paid 741.95 if Mr.Pezzin lost??
Could Mr. Pezzin collect 741.95 for a "COLD" ticket???
this just serves as a warning to anyone stupid enough to join one of these office or workplace "pools" that it isn't a very sound idea to do it. don't do it. it doesn't increase your chances of winning significantly enough to warrant the problems you will encounter later. sharing is never a good idea anyway with anything or anybody.
It all depends on how organized you are. You have to be on top of things in a professional way, and have a witness, or witnesses. Sharing is a good thing if one can afford it. Just don't overdo it.
After all the drama I have seen with those syndicates right here on lottery post I decided to kick it solo. They're not worth it. Whats the joy in winning $200M then spending years fighting for it in the courts? Some people will always be greedy and the lawyers will always be ready to try get them money they dont deserve.
I never go into syndicates, they can be very messy. I am happy for Mr Watson, the court seems to have made the right decision, as he was a regular customer, bought other items at the shop and was well known to the the shopkeeper. If it had been me, I don't thing I would have taken action, I would just take my business elsewhere.
Agreed! Joining a pool seems like a losing idea no matter how anyone puts it...There is no significant increase in the chances and nothing but trouble over hadling of money or other issues. I always made sure to make it perfectly clear I was NOT in any pool at work because I didn't want lawsuits if one of my personal lottery tickets hit! I am more than willing to share my dreams of what I will do with a win but I don't want the trouble of involving other people when VERY LARGE amounts of money are involved. Good luck to all but if you aren't around to help buy don't expect any returns...
The day before the draw, Mr Watson arrived at the agency intending to pay, but left after finding Mr Pezzin was absent. -- but between that day and the next, he couldn't manage to intend his way to a terminal and play the numbers, himself.
That's a crappy ruling.
Mr. Pezzin's mistake was in ever allowing this haphazard pattern of participation & post-payment to develop.
10 shares paid in, now Mr. Pezzin'll have to give up his share to satisfy an 11th claim.
yeah its a crap ruling
You can't let him pay a day late when you lose and then change the rules when you win.
Pezzin's fault for not having established and enforced rules.
Just another reason not to visit Australia!
The magistrate said Mr Watson, a regular participant in the Fitzroy agency's system 17 entry, was entitled to damages of $86,700 — his 10 per cent share of the prize — less the $741.95 ticket cost.
That like saying what you "intended to do" is a good substitute for what "you should have done" when deciding winners in a lottery.
If someone you know wins a lottery and you can convince the magistrate you intended to share the cost of their tickets, they have to share their winnings minus what they spent even if they assumed you weren't by your actions or lack of action.
I wonder if in the future a lottery loser trying to recoup some of his loses by claiming he was told by someone that they would share the cost of his tickets but backed out after the drawing will have a case for making them share the cost of his lost.
"Whats the joy in winning $200M then spending years fighting for it in the courts?"
Oh the horror. I'd just hate to have to put in 3 years of effort to get 10 or 20 million bucks.
"10 shares paid in, now Mr. Pezzin'll have to give up his share to satisfy an 11th claim."
That's what happens when you're bad at running your business. When you sell one item twice you have to figure out a way to satisfy both buyers.
"That like saying what you "intended to do" is a good substitute for what "you should have done" when deciding winners in a lottery. "
What you intended to do is what matter in contract law, and that's exactly what this was about. Pezzin committed a share to Watson, and the judge enforced the contract.