A $150,000 pool, a gambling problem, and who keeps the dog

Ms Barrese and Mr Arrico began their relationship in 2009, when they were around 19 and 20, and later lived together for a short relationship of four to five years. In about 2015 she bought a block of land in her own name, using $60,000 of her savings, the first home buyer's grant and a mortgage. His father's company built the house at cost. They separated in October 2019 and the home sold for about $500,000. After the mortgage and some repayments to his father, $146,826 was held in trust.

He asked for half. She asked for all of it, and wanted $141,700 he had spent on online gambling, plus $55,000 in cash withdrawals, added back to the pool.

Judge Boymal found a net pool of $151,822, not counting super. The judge refused the add-backs because no exact sum could be identified. The judge found that she had paid the mortgage, the rates and most of the living costs, done most of the homemaking, and that her parents had housed the couple rent-free for two to three years. His family's work on the house counted for him, and she accepted that his father's forgone profit matched her deposit. On contributions alone, the judge assessed the split at 70% to her and 30% to him.

The judge then moved a further 12% to her, finding his excessive gambling was reckless and that damage he did to the house had cost money to repair. That figure already allowed something to him for his lower income. The result was 82% to her, about $124,500, and 18% to him, about $27,300, including a car valued at $12,000. Each kept their own super.

The dog was treated as property but left out of the pool. Because she was the registered owner and had paid for and cared for him since separation, she kept the dog.