His gambling cost about $155,000, and the house split moved her way

Mr Giang and Ms Tram married in 1998 and separated in 2014. Both worked in factories, and they raised two children who are now adults. Their main asset was the family home in New South Wales, bought in 2001 and worth $650,000 at trial, with only $4,000 left on the mortgage. Ms Tram managed the money and gave Mr Giang about $200 a week for his own expenses.

Mr Giang gambled. In 2004 he owed about $30,000 on credit cards and personal loans, and the couple increased the mortgage to pay it off. He took out more personal loans in 2008, 2012 and 2014, and between 2012 and 2014 he withdrew at least $78,719 from their joint account for gambling. Relying on bank records rather than either party's memory, Judge Newbrun put his gambling spending at about $155,627, or about $191 a week across the relationship.

Seven years after the separation, the case came to trial. Mr Giang wanted 35% of the house. Ms Tram offered him $40,000. The judge kept superannuation separate, with each keeping their own: $87,000 for her and $40,000 for him. The non-super pool was $649,000.

On contributions, the judge found Ms Tram ahead at 60% to 40%. She did far more of the homemaking and parenting, and she alone had paid the mortgage and kept up the house since separation. The judge then found the gambling was unreasonable for a family on these wages and amounted to wastage. But for it, the mortgage would probably have been paid off by the separation and she would have saved more since. Allowing for a modest amount of reasonable spending on gambling, and for his weaker financial position, the judge added 7.5% for Ms Tram.

The result was 67.5% to Ms Tram and 32.5% to Mr Giang. She could keep the house by paying him $208,925 within two months, although the judge thought she probably could not raise that sum. If she did not pay, the house would be sold and the proceeds divided the same way.