Man dropped from lottery syndicate wins share in court

Comment #13

KY Floyd — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 20:07:23 GMT

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 yo... [ More ]

Comment #12

RJOh — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 17:41:08 GMT

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 s... [ More ]

Comment #11

dpoly1 — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 13:53:00 GMT

Just another reason not to visit Australia

Comment #10

rdgrnr — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:49:02 GMT

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.

Comment #9

savagegoose — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 01:00:03 GMT

yeah its a crap ruling

Comment #8

time*treat — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:29 GMT

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.

Comment #7

petergrfn — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 23:05:14 GMT

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 a... [ More ]

Comment #6

myturn — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 22:16:43 GMT

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.

Comment #5

maringoman — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 21:44:12 GMT

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.

Comment #4

Slick Nick — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:37:36 GMT

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.

Comment #3

faber98 — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 20:31:08 GMT

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.

Comment #2

psykomo — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 18:49:56 GMT

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???

let $ play 4D JACKPOT

Comment #1

Slick Nick — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 17:03:41 GMT

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.

Man dropped from lottery syndicate wins share in court

Lottery Post — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 16:47:23 GMT

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... [ More ]