Lottery syndicates – driven by a long odds dream that members will one day share in riches – are common in Australian communities.
Many rely on handshake promises and keep no records of contributions.
Consider the case of 76 yr-old Mark Bowling who in August 2022 purchased a ticket in a lotto draw from a newsagency south of Sydney.
He had done so on behalf of a syndicate that had comprised several unemployed residents of an apartment complex who each received social security benefits on which they were almost totally dependent.
Bowling would collect $20 cash from each of the others and invest that sum – with his own $20 – at a local newsagency.
The syndicate had minor wins from time to time which were used to purchase tickets -sometimes over several weeks – freeing members from having to contribute for that period.
Alan Way had been a contributing member from April 2019 until at least September 2021.
By August 2022 the syndicate consisted only of Bowling, 89-yr-old Moya Posar and – so he claimed – the reticent Alan Way.
The win by Bowling’s ticket of the $5mn Saturday Lotto first prize set off a bitter dispute that has only just been resolved.
From the winnings he paid Way $200,000 as a gift in recognition of his earlier contributions and $400.000 to Posar.
The remaining $4.4mn went to his relatives, in an apparent attempt to protect his own Centrelink entitlements and those of Posar.
Once Way learned that the winnings were vastly more than what he previously understood them to be, he filed legal proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court claiming to be a member of the syndicate right up until the winning ticket was purchased.
He contended he had paid whatever sum Bowling requested from time to time and produced a hand written diary in which he had recorded $20 contributions on a regular fortnightly basis from July 2021 to 18 August 2022.
To counter that argument, Bowling engaged handwriting expert Steve Dubedat to provide an opinion as to whether the entries referring to payments to Bowling for Lotto were “contemporaneous with other entries apparently made on that date or whether they were made at a different time”.
Dubedat performed microscopic and infrared examinations using a video spectral comparator and examined the diaries for ink transference to determine the sequencing of ink strokes and the relative dating of ink entries.
The handwriting expert concluded the diary entries were synchronous to a high degree which was very unusual but not that the specific entries challenged by Bowling had been inserted later.
Justice James Hmelnitsky was thus left to decide between the two competing historical accounts solely on their plausibility and the credibility of each protagonist.
Way’s case depended on proving Bowling had for a long time set out to deceive him so that when the riches inevitably appeared he could be shafted.
Bowling on the other hand needed to convince the court Way had dishonestly recreated diary entries but only once he learned that there was about $1.5mn to be gained by doing so.
“This is an inherently more plausible theory,” ruled the judge. “The numerous discrepancies between the diary entries and the otherwise verifiable facts make it all the more compelling”.
Way had not – so decided the court – contributed to the purchase of the winning ticket and had ceased contributing to the syndicate in September 2021.
His claim was dismissed and for what it is worth, Way was ordered to pay Bowling’s legal costs of the claim and the four day trial.
The only challenge Bowling now faces, is to recover the $4.4 mn his relatives are holding for him and his 89-yr-old syndicate partner.