Son tries to sue 'ungenerous' £101m EuroMillions winner father because he only gave him £1.6m

Michael Dawes' step mother tells him to 'stop eating at the Ritz and go to McDonald's instead'

Michael Dawes, 32, was given £1.6m by his father, David Dawes, over several years (Getty Images)

A former sailor who tried to sue his “ungenerous” lottery-winning father for not giving him money has had his case thrown out.

Michael Dawes, 32, was given £1.6m by his father, David Dawes, over several years after he won £101m in the Euromillions in 2011.

But after Mr Dawes’ lavish spending caused the funds to run out, his father refused to give him any more, despite allegedly promising he would be taken care of.

Three lottery winners celebrate multimillion-pound jackpots

Mr Dawes, a Royal Navy veteran, said his father and his wife Angela showed “arrogance and ungenerosity of spirit,” the Mail Online reported. He tried to use the courts to get more money from his father.

Mr Dawes added: “I saw how over time their attitude changed from being relatively humble to being rather grand. They expected the people around them to treat them differently because of their money.”

With the money his father had given him, Mr Dawes had bought a £550,000 house and made a series of life decisions, including quitting jobs, with his partner James Beedle.

Mr Dawes claimed his father repeatedly told him he would “always be looked after”.

But after Mr Dawes burned through the money by 2013 and his mother-in-law told him to “stop going to the Ritz for lunch and go to McDonalds instead,” the newspaper reported.

Mr Dawes and Mr Beedle reportedly spent £20,000 to £30,000 a week and up to £1,000 on weekly grocery shopping.

Ms Dawes said she never thought the windfall given to her step-son “would be gone a couple of years down the road”.

“We thought that £1m would more than cover them for life,” she said.

Judge Nigel Gerald said the idea that Mr Dawes’ father would “cough up” whenever he was asked was a “strange conclusion”.

He added: “Michael was provided with the funds to have a comfortable life, but for his own reasons he chose not to take that opportunity. I therefore dismiss the claim.”