A man who sued his stepmum for a share in a Lotto jackpot has won his case - and will get £480,000.
David Walsh had sought a one sixth share of Mary Walsh's £2.9million Lotto win.
See also: Man finds winning lottery ticket days before it expires
See also: £148 million Lottery winner Adrian Bayford suffers another blow
He took his case to the High Court in Ireland which ruled on Thursday in his favour, the Irish Mirror reports.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys ruled that David Walsh was part of a syndicate and was a co-owner of a winning ticket and was entitled to approximately £480,000 share of the jackpot.
Mr Walsh, who was one of six signatories on the back of the winning ticket, sued his step mother Mary Walsh, who was married to his late father Peter Walsh, claiming he was entitled to a one sixth share.
The judge said evidence given by Mr Walsh's stepmother Mary Walsh during the seven day hearing was inconsistent, "not credible", contained "self contradiction" and was "unreliable".
Outside court following the ruling a clearly delighted Mr Walsh, from Galway, smiled at the media.
In his action he claimed his late father had told him, shortly after the win, he would be looked after and would not have to worry about money again.
However he claimed he did not get his share.
Mrs Walsh opposed the claim and argued that she was the sole owner of the winning ticket, which was bought in Ballinasloe, Co Galway on January 22nd 2011.
She had claimed that she, her late husband and four of their relatives had signed the back of the ticket to avoid paying gift tax.
The court heard Mrs Walsh's son Jason received £257,000, her son Tony £380,000 while Kevin Black, a nephew of Peter Walsh received £86,000.
She also said David Walsh was offered the option of having £171,000 from the Lotto win or the former home that she and her late husband shared at Knocknagreena, Ballinasloe and opted for the house. Mr Walsh denied that.
The transfer of the property, which has been valued at £116,000, was completed in December 2011 when Peter Walsh died.
Following the conclusion of evidence on what was the seventh day of the hearing Mr Justice Humphreys said he accepted evidence tendered by David Walsh as being credible.
This was in contrast to evidence tendered by his step mother which the judge said had given evidence that was "fundamentally inconsistent" and she "lied on oath".
While it had initially been denied by the defendant there was an acceptance during her evidence that David Walsh was a co owner of the ticket.
The judge said he was satisfied from the evidence that after it was discovered that they had the winning ticket was an intention that three members of Mrs Walsh's family and three members of the late Mr Peter Walsh's family would benefit from the win.
The judge also said that it had been admitted that the ticket was to be 50-50 between Mrs Walsh and the late Mr Walsh.
The judge said he did not accept that Mrs Walsh was the sole owner of the winning ticket nor did the court accept Mrs Walsh's claim that her step son had been offered the house instead of £171,000.
Given the valuation of the house it did not make sense that David Walsh would do himself out of £55,000, the judge said.
The judge also found that the transfer of the house had nothing to do with the lotto win.
He said there was no mention of the lotto win or that the transfer was being done as a result of the win in the file of the solicitor who handled that transaction.
The judge also said he was satisfied from the evidence that Mrs Walsh had lied on a sworn statement to revenue when extracting probate following her husband's death.
She had made a conscious decision to swear a false affidavit, where details including the number of children the late Peter Walsh had and details about joint assets were omitted, for the purpose of hiding assets from her step children.
The judge said that he did not accept Mrs Walsh's explanation that the omissions were "made in error."