"Where a price of $3.3 million is at stake, fabrication is the ready explanation for this impossible story having been told," Justice Des Fagan said on Wednesday.

David Owen Renshaw sued NSW Lotteries over the unclaimed September 1997 Oz Lotto draw ticket winnings, which were one-third of the first division prize.

Over the years, about 50 people have claimed to have had the winning ticket.

Mr Renshaw, who represented himself, began his NSW Supreme Court action in 2016.

The disability pensioner said he bought a ticket from Greenfield Park and presented it at Granville Railway Station newsagency following the draw.

When he handed in his ticket to the newsagency he said he saw the words "provisional winner" come up.

His accounts included a claim the shop attendant - who didn't speak English very well - threw the ticket in the bin saying "no winner" and then refused to return it and ran into the office locking himself in.

"All of the plaintiff's accounts of having presented his ticket are highly implausible on the face of them," the judge said.

"The variations from one purported recollection to the next exacerbate their unreliability."

His assertion about "provisional winner" were bound up with his varying accounts of agitation and confrontation with the agent when the latter discarded his ticket.

"I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any of these events occurred," the judge said.

Justice Fagan wasn't satisfied Mr Renshaw bought any ticket in the draw - let alone the winning ticket.

He referred to data showing the winning ticket had not been bought at Greenfield Park on the date and in the time frame Mr Renshaw put forward.

"The plaintiff's narrative taken as a whole is fantastic," Justice Fagan said.

"It is unbelievable".

Referring to Mr Renshaw's "irresponsible pursuit of this hopeless claim", the judge said he should now pay some of NSW Lotteries' legal costs .

The pensioner had previously rejected an offer to settle the case on terms that Lotteries would not enforce a costs order if he discontinued the action.

"Not only have the proceedings been prosecuted by the plaintiff without any reasonable evidentiary basis, they have been conducted by him wastefully and inefficiently," the judge said.

"As a self-represented litigant, incurring no cost to himself and having no assets, he has lacked the incentive to exercise caution or to heed legal advice.

"He has put the defendants to great expense and squandered significant time and capacity of the court."

Australian Associated Press