(a) It was plain that Mrs Abrugiato was concerned to ensure that her children were treated equally in the division of her estate. I have no doubt that this reflected the natural desire of a parent. However, I consider that it may have been reinforced by her concern that the distribution of her estate should not cause further disputes among her children. That was reflected, for example, in [Maria's] evidence that Mrs Abrugiato did not want money to be owed between her children following the distribution of her estate.
(b) There was no issue between the parties that Mrs Abrugiato wished to treat her children fairly and equitably. However, the absence of controversy should not marginalise the significance of this aspect of Mrs Abrugiato's intentions. This was, in my view, Mrs Abrugiato's primary intention; more specific intentions were subordinate to the overriding objective of equality in the distribution of the estate.
(c) The succession plan focused on the assets under Mrs Abrugiato's control. The reason for that was obvious: it was the estate's assets that Mrs Abrugiato wished to distribute and leave to her children. I accept Mr Hansen's evidence that discussions with Mrs Abrugiato focused on the estate's assets.
(d) Consistent with the testamentary nature of the succession plan, Mrs Abrugiato wished to eliminate the estate's liabilities during her lifetime so that the gifts to her children would be unaffected by those liabilities. Eliminating the liabilities from the estate was consistent with the objectives and concerns held by Mrs Abrugiato. The dividend payment plan provided the means by which the liabilities could be eliminated. The receivables represented by the loans made to the Family Trust by Abrugiato and Mr and Mrs Abrugiato (or by the undistributed entitlements of Abrugiato and Mr and Mrs Abrugiato) could not be sensibly regarded as assets to be divided among Mrs Abrugiato's children given that the corresponding liability rested with the Family Trust. I accept that Mrs Abrugiato appreciated that fact from the succession plan and her discussions with Mr Ivanac [of Bird Cameron] and Mr Hansen about the plan.
(e) It follows that the liabilities of the Family Trust must have been discussed in the meetings held in 2006 between Mrs Abrugiato and Mr Ivanac [of Bird Cameron] and Mr Hansen. However, the evidence as to what was discussed about the liabilities was vague and equivocal apart from what appeared in the succession plan.
(f) I accept that Mrs Abrugiato appreciated that the purpose of the dividend payment plan was to eliminate the liabilities of the Family Trust using the retained earnings in Abrugiato and that she intended that this should occur by implementing the plan [176].