The recent battle between an airline pilot and his ex-wife
over sharesfrom a pub syndicate lottery win is unique on its own particular facts,though
of course not the first case involving a dispute over a lottery win.And the popularity
of the lottery and other forms of gambling syndicatespoints towards more cases involving
disputes over wins in the future.The judgment cries out as a warning to syndicates to
put their intentionsin the event of a big win in writing.Among other things the recent
case has, according to lawyers involved init, highlighted one legal anomaly which puts
wives in a far better positionthan husbands to lay claim to lottery winnings if a
dispute such as thatbetween Lotte and Anthony Abrahams arises.The couple at the centre
of the battle joined a 15-member lotterysyndicate at their local pub, each paying £1 a
week for their share.Their marriage then broke up. The wife, however, continued working
behindthe bar at the pub and continued paying the £2 a week syndicate dues.And she
continued to contribute even after her husband came into the puband, on being asked to
pay his share, suggested she "stick it up yourarse".The husband lived to regret those
words. Shortly afterwards, the syndicatescooped a £3.6m jackpot.The wife then said that
as she had been paying her ex-husband'scontributions, she was entitled to his share of
the winnings as well as herown.Now, in the High Court case of Abrahams v the Trustees
of the Property ofAnthony Abrahams, a Bankrupt, brought by the trustees of the
bankrupthusband, Mr Justice Lindsay has ruled that the wife was right. She wasentitled
to winnings of over £500,000 while her husband and his trusteeswere entitled to nothing
from the jackpot.Solicitor for the wife was Don Freeman, a partner in the
Worthing-basedfirm Lynch Hall.He says: "The lottery win was in May 1997. The problems
arose immediatelyafter the win. It was an unusual case in that it involves a lottery
win."However, the law involved was basically trust law and the decision wasone which
followed long-established trust law principles."The basic problem was that there were
no written rules of the syndicateand the understanding of various syndicate members as
to what the ruleswere were not all the same. No one had really considered it until after
thewin."This case effectively split the syndicate members into three camps. Therewere
the ones called by us to give evidence. Others gave evidence insupport of the trustees
and the rest kept out of matters as far as thelegal proceedings. "The case illustrates
the importance for those such as lottery syndicatesto have proper written rules to avoid
a win resulting in litigation. Howthey go about putting such rules in writing is up to
them."I think if they went to a solicitor the cost would probably be around£50. But
failing that, they should at least attempt to commit something towriting themselves."A
spokesman for barristers chambers 11 Old Square, where some counsel inthe case came
from, highlights another unusual aspect of the matter."The case was decided in
accordance with principles of trust law whichhave been a part of English law since the
18th century."This application of old rules in a very modern context highlights
someanachronistic anomalies," he says."Where facts are less clear than they are here,
the deciding factor insuch a case could end up depending on whether it is the wife or
the husbandwho has paid for the ticket."Where a wife purchases something such as a
lottery ticket in the name ofher husband, the law presumes that she has intended to
retain the benefitof it for herself rather than make a gift of it to her
husband."However, if a husband buys a ticket in his wife's name the position isvery
different."Then the 'presumption of advancement' assumes that he does intend to makea
gift of the property, unless he can prove otherwise."In times when a woman has a
statutory duty to care for her children andfrequently makes equal economic contributions
in marriage this notion iscertainly unrealistic and potentially insulting to women and
injurious tomen."
