In Bampton v Vourlides [2024] QCA 191, William John Bampton appealed a District Court decision dismissing his claim against his daughter, Suzanne Elaine Vourlides, for the return of $300,000. Bampton claimed the payment was induced by undue influence and sought to recover the funds. The appellant argued that undue pressure was applied during a family altercation shortly before the transaction. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Judges Bond JA, Crow, and Crowley JJ, upheld the lower court's findings, dismissing the appeal. The court concluded there was insufficient evidence to prove that Vourlides exerted undue influence over her father, despite their altercation. The presence of a presumption of undue influence under section 87 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld) was rebutted by the evidence that demonstrated Bampton acted with independent will. The ruling affirmed the decision that no undue influence was employed in the issuance of the bank cheque to Vourlides, and the transfer was upheld as a gift with no coercion, thereby dismissing the appeal with costs awarded against Bampton.
top of page
bottom of page