A BINGO winner who cheated her friend out of (pounds) 54,000 after winning the jackpot has finally lost her case, and has to pay the price of breaking her promise - a legal bill of around (pounds) 35,000.
Isobel Robertson, whose numbers came up after she successfully claimed her former best friend, Lorna Anderson, promised to split her winnings, is legally entitled to half of the (pounds) 108,000 prize money.
Mrs Anderson, meanwhile, is faced with a hefty legal bill - perhaps (pounds) 35,000 - which will make a substantial dent in her windfall, after she lost her appeal.
Speaking after the verdict, Mrs Robertson said she was ''delighted'' with the outcome.
She added: ''I have been vindicated. I was branded a liar and a thief, but the courts have backed me twice, in a case that came down to credibility - my word against hers.''
The case went to the Court of Session after Mrs Anderson, 39, of Charles Gardens, Kirn, Dunoon, scooped a major national prize at the Mecca bingo hall in Drumchapel, Glasgow, in November 1997.
Mrs Robertson, 41, of Dyce Lane, Glasgow, accused her of reneging on an agreement that they would ''go halfers'' if either of them won the major prize.
The bitter legal dispute left their 12-year-old friendship on the rocks and their husbands also fell out.
During the hearing last year, Lord Carloway heard conflicting accounts about whether the former friends had agreed to split any winnings.
The judge said, however: ''I accept the evidence of Mrs Robertson that an agreement to share the proceeds of any win of the national prize was reached with Mrs Anderson on the way to the Mecca bingo hall on the night of the win.''
Mrs Anderson appealed to three judges and Lord Reed, who heard the case with Lords MacLean and Weir, said: ''When Mrs Robertson and Mrs Anderson set off together to play bingo at the Mecca Bingo Hall in Drumchapel they can hardly have anticipated that that activity would give rise to learned legal arguments in the courts.''
Lord Reed said the main issues raised in the appeal were whether Lord Carloway had been entitled to rule that there was an agreement between the two women to share any big prize and that it was legally enforceable. The appeal judges supported Lord Carloway's decision on both points.
Counsel for Mrs Anderson argued that the jackpot-sharing agreement was unenforcable in Scots law because it was a gaming debt but Lord Reed said: ''It appears to us that neither party was making a bet or wager with the other. Neither of them could be better or worse off than the other as the result of the game. Their contract was related to gaming but it was not in itself a gaming contract. The issue before the court - whether Mrs Anderson is under an obligation to share with Mrs Robertson the winnings which she received - does not involve the enforcement of a gaming contract.''
Although judges refused the appeal, Mrs Robertson said she was doubtful she would receive her share of the (pounds) 108,000.
''I don't think I'll see a penny of it. The lawyers first have to be paid and I think she (Mrs Anderson) has already spent some of the money, but I'm so glad the whole case is over and, after five years, I can now get on with my life. I still play bingo, but I go with my mum now because I trust her.''
Mrs Robertson added that she didn't think her friendship with Mrs Anderson could ever be repaired. She said: ''How can you come back from something like that? Friendship is built on trust.''
Mrs Anderson was unable to be contacted last night.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article