Yahoo Finance Dad sues daughter over $1m lotto win
An Aussie family torn apart by a million-dollar lottery win are still disputing the money in an ugly court battle over a gift.
William John Bampton, 92, from Twin Waters on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast, won $986,212.30 in Tattslotto winnings in March 2018, according to court documents.
In August of that year, he gave $300,000 to his daughter, Suzanne Elaine Vourlides.
However, Mr Brampton then alleged he was unduly influenced or subjected to unconscionable conduct by Mrs Vourlides.
He took the matter to court, claiming he “was induced to make the transfer by way of a gift by Mrs Vourlides’ undue influence or unconscionable conduct”, according to court documents.
During the trial, Mr Bampton alleged there was an argument between him and his daughter in early August 2018.
He claimed “as a consequence of that and the behaviour of his daughter during it” he had felt “overwhelmed” and was obliged to pay her the money.
In December 2023, Judge Suzanne Sheridan found in Brisbane District Court that ultimately no argument had taken place and Mr Brampton was not the type of man who could have been easily swayed or bullied into giving away his money.
The court documents stated Mr Brampton failed to prove he was at a “special disadvantage because of illness, ignorance, inexperience, impaired faculties or financial need”.
Mr Brampton has appealed the decision, which remains before the courts.
On Thursday, his daughter, Mrs Vourlides, lost her bid to have the court order her father provide security for the costs of the appeal to the value of $50,000.
In his ruling, Justice Philip Morrison found Mr Brampton’s assets, which included a 40 per cent stake in ownership of the unit he lives in at a retirement home, would cover any associated costs at trial.
Court documents also stated Mr Brampton had promised he wouldn’t “remove from Australia or anyway dispose of or deal with or diminish the value of my assets” except for legal costs, living expenses and accommodation expenses within his retirement village.
Justice Morrison said Mr Brampton’s assets were a “source of funds to meet such costs” of the court proceedings, even if it meant the retirement village unit needed to be sold at a later date.
Justice Morrison rejected Mrs Vourlides’ concerns, raised by her solicitor, that she worried her brother, who owns 60 per cent of the retirement unit, would “resist or delay” payment of costs if their father died.
Court documents stated Mrs Vourlides expressed concern that her brother had “taken her father’s side in the litigation” and was “antagonistic” towards her.
“That assertion is not, in my view, sufficient to raise the issue to any form of likelihood, nor to the point that it would lessen the force of the undertaking offered,” Justice Morrison said.
The appeal will be heard at a later date.
