Bampton v Vourlides

Case [2023] QDC 248

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bampton v Vourlides [2023] QDC 248

PARTIES:

WILLIAM JOHN BAMPTON
(plaintiff)
v
SUZANNE ELAINE VOURLIDES
(defendant)

FILE NO:

BD No 2560 of 2021

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2023

DELIVERED AT:

District Court at Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 November 2022; 8 November 2022; 9 November 2022; 10 November 2022; 14 December 2022; 15 December 2022; 6 March 2023

JUDGE:

Sheridan DCJ

ORDERS:

1.   The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2.   If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Thursday, 25 January 2024.

3.   If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs:

(i)       the plaintiff file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length (excluding any attachments), by 4:00pm, Thursday, 1 February 2024;

(ii)     the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length (excluding any attachments), by 4:00pm, Thursday, 8 February 2024; and

(iii)    the plaintiff file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Thursday, 15 February 2024.

CATCHWORDS:

EQUITY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – UNDUE INFLUENCE AND DURESS – PRESUMPTION OF UNDUE INFLUENCE FROM RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES – where the plaintiff is the father of the defendant – where the plaintiff transferred $300,000 to the defendant by way of gift – where the defendant held from the plaintiff an enduring power of attorney at the time of the transfer - where the plaintiff alleges the transfer was the result of undue influence – where that is said to result from an altercation a few days before the transfer – whether there was actual undue influence – whether the presumption of undue influence had been rebutted – whether the retention of the money by the defendant was unconscionable  – whether a declaration should be made that the transfer is null and void

LEGISLATION:

Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld)

CASES:

Bassett v Registrar of Titles [2021] QSC 341
Birch v Birch [2020] QCA 31
Blomley v Ryan (1956) 99 CLR 362
Bridgewater v Leahy (1998) 194 CLR 457
Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio (1983) 151 CLR 447
Johnson v Buttress (1936) 56 CLR
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Louth v Diprose (1992) 175 CLR 621
Quek v Beggs (1990) 5 BPR 11,761
Smith v Glegg [2004] QSC 443
Urane v Whipper [2001] NSWSC 796
Wilby v St George Bank [2001] SASC 388

COUNSEL:

A Morris, with I Erskine, for the plaintiff
M Amerena for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Barclay Beirne Lawyers for the plaintiff
Mark Treherne & Associates for the defendant

Introduction

  1. In this claim, William John Bampton seeks to have set aside a transfer made by him of $300,000 to his daughter, Suzanne Vourlides on 8 August 2018.

  2. Mr Bampton seeks a declaration that he was induced to make the transfer by way of a gift by Mrs Vourlides’ undue influence or unconscionable conduct.

    Undisputed evidence

  3. Mr Bampton…

Continue reading Bampton v Vourlides

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bampton v Vourlides [2023] QDC 248
Case
[2023] QDC 248
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bampton v Vourlides involved a dispute between a father and his daughter regarding a transfer of $300,000. The plaintiff, Mr Bampton, alleged that the transfer was the result of undue influence and sought a declaration that the transfer was null and void. The defendant, Mrs Vourlides, argued that the transfer was a valid gift. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the presumption of undue influence had been rebutted and whether the retention of the money by Mrs Vourlides was unconscionable.

The court considered the relationship between the parties and the circumstances surrounding the transfer. It found that while there was a presumption of undue influence due to the familial relationship, the plaintiff had failed to prove that undue influence was actually exercised. The court also found that the presumption of undue influence had been rebutted as the gift was fair, just, and reasonable in the circumstances. The court held that the transfer was a valid gift and dismissed the plaintiff's claim. The court ordered the parties to make submissions on costs, unless costs can be otherwise agreed between the parties. If the parties cannot reach agreement, the court provided a timeline for the submission of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2. If the parties are able to reach agreement as to costs, a consent order signed by the parties be filed by 4:00pm, Thursday, 25 January 2024.

3. If the parties cannot reach agreement as to costs:

(i) the plaintiff file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length (excluding any attachments), by 4:00pm, Thursday, 1 February 2024;

(ii) the defendant file submissions, of no more than 4 pages in length (excluding any attachments), by 4:00pm, Thursday, 8 February 2024; and

(iii) the plaintiff file any submissions in reply, of no more than 2 pages in length, by 4:00pm, Thursday, 15 February 2024.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Mr Bampton seeks a declaration that he was induced to make the transfer by way of a gift by Mrs Vourlides’ undue influence or unconscionable conduct.Undisputed evidence Mr Bampton was born on 9 June 1931. At the time of the hearing, he was 91 years of age. In 1952, Mr Bampton married his wife, Elaine Bampton. There were two children of the marriage, Larry Bampton born on 13 January 1957 and the defendant, Suzanne Vourlides, born on 12 November 1954. Larry and his former wife have one child, Hugh Bampton, born 18 November 1995. Hugh has two children; Ronan born 21 April 2017 and Emily born 22 July 2019. Mrs Vourlides married Dimitrious (Jim) Vourlides in 1983 and together they had three children; Emily born 5 December 1985, Mark born 26 May 1987 and Paul born 1 October 1990. Mark has one child, Marshall, born 16 October 2020. Mrs Bampton suffered a stroke in 2012. Mr Bampton and his wife moved into supported accommodation at Tall Trees Tanah Marah Retirement Village in or about 2014. Mr Bampton’s wife passed away on 21 December 2015. Immediately following the passing of Mrs Bampton, Mr Bampton resided at the home of his daughter and her husband at Bundall, Gold Coast. In or about March 2016, Mr Bampton returned to reside at Tall Trees until on or about 25 January 2017 when he left Tall Trees and moved permanently to reside at the home of his daughter and her husband at Bundall. Mr Bampton resided there until 23 September 2020. During the period when Mr Bampton resided with Mrs Vourlides:(a)From in or about December 2017, Mrs Vourlides received payment from Centrelink in the nature of a carer’s allowance in respect of Mr Bampton; though there is conflicting evidence as to the start date of the payments and the weekly or fortnightly amount of such payments; and(b)Mr Bampton paid an amount of $250.00 in cash weekly to Mrs Vourlides on account of room and board, which amount was increased by $10 per week during the period Mr Bampton resided with his daughter; though there is conflicting evidence as to how the making of this payment came about. By an enduring power of attorney instrument dated 3 May 2017, Mr Bampton appointed Mrs Vourlides as a donee under a joint attorney with her brother, Larry, with respect to financial and personal/health matters. Mrs Vourlides accepted the appointment on or about 27 May 2017. The power for financial matters was to begin on Mr Bampton being certified as mentally or physically incapable of making decisions, understanding the nature and effect of, or of communicating decisions. On or about 14 March 2018, Mr Bampton received an amount of $986,212.30 of Golden Casket winnings. On 26 March 2018, Mr Bampton signed a contract and paid a deposit of $50,015.00 for the purchase of a four bedroom house for $550,000.00 at 61 Brampton Crescent, Mountain Creek to be owned by himself and his son, Larry Bampton. On 4 April 2018, Mr Bampton paid $505,030 using funds held in his own bank account to his lawyer acting in the conveyance of the house property at Mountain Creek for completion of the purchase. The transfer of the property, as evidenced by the Certificate of Title, was effected on 11 April 2018 in the names of Mr Bampton and his son, Larry, as joint tenants.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Finally, I am prepared to accept that the gift was fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances. The gift was made out of winnings from the lotto. Mr Bampton conceded he did not need the winnings. The gift did not detract from his own financial needs. It involved more or less equal treatment of his children.Conclusion The claim is dismissed. I will make orders for the parties to make submissions on costs, unless costs can be otherwise agreed between the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.