Court of Appeal Supreme Court 最高法院 New South Wales 新南威尔士州

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
[注：《2005年统一民事诉讼规则》（Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005）规定（规则36.11），除非法院另有命令，否则判决或命令在记录在法院的计算机化法庭记录系统中时，即视为已输入。撤销和更改判决或命令按规则 36.15、36.16、36.17 和 36.18 处理。缔约方应特别注意细则 36.16 中 14 天的时限。

HEADNOTE
判例摘要

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]
[本判例摘要不应作为判决书的一部分阅读]

The appellants, Mr Breen and Ms Dillon, and the respondent, Ms Clough, own neighbouring properties on land that slopes steeply down from the street above to the Georges River below. The parties’ respective properties are accessed via an inclinator. There are various easements benefiting and burdening the respective properties. One such easement, Easement I, is expressed in the relevant instrument as an easement for services.
上诉人 Breen 先生和 Dillon 女士以及被告 Clough 女士在从上面的街道陡峭地向下倾斜到下面的乔治河的土地上拥有邻近的房产。双方各自的财产可通过倾斜器访问。有各种地役权使各自的财产受益和负担。其中一种地役权，即地役权 I，在相关文书中表示为服务的地役权。

The appellants installed a CCTV camera within the land covered by Easement I to provide vision of the passageway area outside the two storage rooms used by the respective parties (which is accessed via a particular landing along the inclinator). The CCTV camera was installed for reasons including “safety and security, as well as control and management of the inclinator”. The cabling from the CCTV camera was connected to a CCTV monitoring system inside the lot benefited (i.e., the applicants’ lot), and operated using electricity supplied to that lot. Relevantly, the CCTV was not otherwise connected to any external service provider of security monitoring services – it was a “closed system”.
上诉人在地役权 I 覆盖的土地内安装了闭路电视摄像机，以提供各方使用的两个储藏室外的通道区域的视野（可通过沿倾斜器的特定平台进入）。安装闭路电视摄像机的原因包括 “安全和安保，以及对倾斜器的控制和管理”。闭路电视摄像机的电缆连接到受益地段（即申请人的地段）内的闭路电视监控系统，并使用提供给该地段的电力运行。与此相关的是，闭路电视没有以其他方式连接到任何安全监控服务的外部服务提供商——它是一个“封闭系统”。

The primary judge found that the installation and maintenance of the CCTV camera was impermissible within the terms of the easement for services as expressed in Schedule 8, Part 11 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) (Conveyancing Act). It was held that the CCTV camera was neither “domestic services” nor was it a service “to or from each lot benefited” (although his Honour accepted that it was probably a domestic activity). Relevantly, this finding hinged upon the fact that it was not provided by an outside supplier (i.e., a third party) to the lot benefited. Accordingly, the primary judge ordered that the CCTV camera be removed.
主审法官认为，根据 1919 年产权转让法（新南威尔士州）（产权转让法）第 11 部分附表 8 中规定的服务地役权条款，安装和维护闭路电视摄像机是不允许的。法院裁定，闭路电视摄像机既不是“家庭服务”，也不是“向或来自每个受益地段”提供的服务（尽管法官承认这可能是家庭活动）。与此相关的是，这一发现取决于这样一个事实，即它不是由外部供应商（即第三方）提供给受益批次的。因此，主审法官下令拆除闭路电视摄像机。

The appellants challenged this construction of the expression “easement for services” in the Conveyancing Act.
上诉人对《物业转让法》中“服务地役权”一词的解释提出质疑。

The Court held (Ward P, Stern JA and Griffiths AJA agreeing), allowing the appeal:
法院裁定（Ward P、Stern JA 和 Griffiths AJA 同意）允许上诉：

(1)   There is nothing in the statutory terms of the easement for services that, read in its natural meaning, requires the source of the domestic service to be from an external provider. Rather, what is required is that the service be “to” or “from” the lot benefited. Here, the activity or service (of providing images of the passageway area outside the storage rooms) is a service that is clearly “to” the lot benefited: [51]-[57] (Ward P); [67] (Stern JA); [68] (Griffiths AJA).
（1） 地役权的法定服务条款中没有任何内容，从其自然含义来看，要求国内服务的来源来自外部供应商。相反，要求的是服务是“到”或“来自”受益的地段。在这里，活动或服务（提供储藏室外通道区域的图像）显然是“对”受益地段的服务：[51]-[57]（P病房）;[67]（斯特恩·贾）;[68] （格里菲斯 AJA）。

JUDGMENT
判断

WARD P: On 26 November 2024, this Court heard, concurrently, an application for leave to appeal and, if leave be granted, the appeal itself. The present proceeding is but one in a long running litigious saga between warring neighbours who own properties in Lugarno, New South Wales. The sole proposed ground of appeal that is now pressed by the applicants (Mr Breen and Ms Dillon) is as to the decision by the primary judge (Clough v Breen (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 1759) (the primary judgment) that the installation of a CCTV camera on the land of the respondent (Ms Clough), the subject of an easement in their favour, was not authorised under the terms of the easement. Pursuant to the orders made by the primary judge the CCTV camera was required to be removed.
WARD P：2024 年 11 月 26 日，本法院同时审理了一起上诉许可申请，如果获得许可，则审理了上诉本身。目前的诉讼只是在新南威尔士州卢加诺拥有房产的交战邻国之间长期诉讼中的一个。申请人（Breen 先生和 Dillon 女士）现在提出的唯一拟议上诉理由是关于主审法官 （Clough v Breen （No 2） [2022] NSWSC 1759）（初审判决）的决定，即在被告（Clough 女士）的土地上安装闭路电视摄像机，这是对他们有利的地役权的主体， 未根据地役权条款获得授权。根据主审法官的命令，闭路电视摄像机必须拆除。

The applicants did not concede that leave was required (although the decision when made was an interlocutory decision and the value of their claimed right to install the CCTV camera was not readily quantifiable) and they point out that they are in the position where a declaration as to their rights has been made. However, in case leave is required, the applicants have sought leave to appeal, maintaining that there is an issue of principle raised which is of public importance as to the construction of the definition of the statutory terms of an easement for services.
申请人没有承认需要许可（尽管做出的决定是非正审决定，而且他们声称的安装闭路电视摄像机的权利的价值不容易量化），他们指出他们所处的位置已经就他们的权利做出了声明。然而，如果需要许可，申请人已寻求上诉许可，坚持认为存在一个原则问题，该问题在解释服务地役权的法定条款定义方面具有公共重要性。

For the reasons that follow, to the extent that leave is necessary it should be granted and the appeal allowed.
基于以下原因，在必要的范围内，应批准许可并允许上诉。

Background
背景

The background to the dispute is set out in the primary judgment and need only be briefly stated here.
争议的背景在初审判决中列出，此处只需简要说明。

As noted above, the respective parties own neighbouring properties on land that slopes steeply down from the street above to the Georges River below. The applicants own Lot 118 (the lot benefited by the relevant easement). The respondent owns Lot 116 (the lot burdened by the relevant easement). The neighbours’ houses are situated on the low lying slope of the properties, towards the water. There is a single inclinator located on the respondent’s land, which both houses use for access to their properties. The inclinator stops at 6 landings, described by Rees J in an earlier decision in Clough v Breen [2020] NSWSC 653 (Rees J decision) (at [5]). It is necessary for the inclinator to be activated by use of a call button.
如上所述，各方在从上面的街道陡峭地向下倾斜到下面的乔治河的土地上拥有相邻的房产。申请人拥有 118 号地块（受益于相关地役权的地块）。被申请人拥有 116 号地块（受相关地役权负担的地块）。邻居的房子位于房产的低洼斜坡上，面向水面。在被告的土地上有一个倾斜器，两栋房屋都使用它来进入他们的财产。倾斜器停在 6 个平台处，Rees J 在 Clough v Breen [2020] NSWSC 653 （Rees J 裁决）的早期裁决中描述（第 [5] 段）。必须使用呼叫按钮激活倾斜器。

There are various easements (some 11 in total) burdening or benefiting the respective properties, as the case may be. The easements were created by the registration of a s 88B instrument on 18 January 2002, before either side had acquired their or her property. For present purposes, the relevant easement is Easement I, described as an easement for services. (Somewhat unhelpfully, there are two Easement “I”s on the relevant plan, the other being an easement for support. However, there was no dispute that it was the Easement I which related to an easement for services whose construction was in issue.)
根据具体情况，有各种地役权（总共约 11 个）对各自的财产造成负担或受益。地役权是通过 2002 年 1 月 18 日第 88B 条文书的注册创建的，当时任何一方都没有获得其财产。就目前而言，相关的地役权是地役权 I，被描述为服务的地役权。（有点无益的是，相关计划中有两个地役权“I”，另一个是用于支持的地役权。然而，毫无疑问，地役权 I 与建筑有争议的服务地役权有关。

There have been ongoing disputes between the neighbours over the years (see, for example, Breen v Clough [2017] NSWSC 1681, in respect of which applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal were unsuccessful – see Breen v Clough [2018] NSWCA 172; the Rees J decision in 2020; and the various decisions by the primary judge, Slattery J, in the judgment the subject of this appeal to which I refer below). It can readily be seen from those various decisions that there has been fault on both sides.
多年来，邻居之间一直存在争议（例如，见Breen v Clough [2017] NSWSC 1681，上诉许可和交叉上诉的申请均未成功——见Breen v Clough [2018] NSWCA 172; 2020年Rees法官的裁决;以及主审法官Slattery J的各种裁决。 在判决书中，我在下面提到的本上诉的主题）。从这些不同的决定中可以很容易地看出，双方都有过错。

The present issue relates solely to the installation of the CCTV camera by Mr Breen on the respondent’s land. The CCTV camera was installed immediately below landing 5, within the area of Easement I. The camera was installed high on a wall at the storeroom level. The camera was positioned so as to provide vision of the passageway area outside the two storage rooms below landing 5 (one being designated for each of the lots). It seems not to have been contested that the only practical place to put the CCTV camera on the relevant landing (in order to obtain vision of the passageway area) was where it was in fact placed. There also seems to have been no contention raised in the hearing before the primary judge as to whether the CCTV camera was reasonably necessary for the purposes for which it was placed there – something relevant when considering Ground 1(b) of the proposed grounds of appeal. The sole issue determined in the primary judgment was thus whether the easement, as properly construed, permitted the installation and operation of the CCTV camera.
本问题仅涉及 Breen 先生在被告土地上安装闭路电视摄像机。闭路电视摄像机安装在 5 号平台正下方，在地役权 I 区域内。该摄像头安装在储藏室层的墙壁上。摄像机的位置是为了提供 5 号平台下方两个储藏室外的通道区域的视野（每个地块指定一个）。似乎没有争议的是，在相关平台放置闭路电视摄像机的唯一实际位置（为了获得通道区域的视野）是它实际上放置的地方。在主审法官的听证会上，似乎也没有就闭路电视摄像机是否对于放置在那里的目的合理必要性提出争议——这在考虑拟议上诉理由的理由 1（b） 时是相关的。因此，初步判决中确定的唯一问题是地役权是否按照正确解释允许安装和作闭路电视摄像机。

The primary judge noted that the “aim” of installing the camera was so that the applicants could see persons entering and exiting the storage rooms and congregating outside the storage rooms (primary judgment at [16]). The passageway outside the storage rooms leads up to the landing 5 level by a metallic spiral staircase. The applicants have pointed to additional evidence that was before the primary judge to the effect that the CCTV camera was for reasons including “safety and security, as well as control and management of the inclinator” and they say that this was unchallenged.
主审法官指出，安装摄像头的“目的”是为了让申请人可以看到进出储藏室和聚集在储藏室外的人（[16] 的初审判决）。储藏室外的通道通过金属螺旋楼梯通向 5 层平台。申请人指出，主审法官面前的其他证据显示，闭路电视摄像机是出于“安全和安保，以及对倾斜者的控制和管理”等原因，他们说这没有受到质疑。

Pausing here, it is not clear whether his Honour at [16] was making a finding as to the purpose of installation, as opposed to recounting some of the background to the issue he was there to determine. The applicants say that his Honour was not making such a finding but that if he did then it is challenged (see AT 3.44ff). (That, of course, is contrary to the applicants’ opening submission in this Court that there was no challenge to any of the factual findings, purely an argument as to a point in law (AT 1.45)).
在这里暂停一下，目前尚不清楚 [16] 法官是否对安装的目的进行了调查，而不是叙述了他在那里确定的问题的一些背景。申请人说，法官没有做出这样的裁决，但如果他做出了，那么就会受到质疑（见 AT 3.44ff）。（当然，这与申请人在本法院的开场陈词相反，即对任何事实调查结果都没有质疑，纯粹是对法律观点的争论（AT 1.45））。

In any event, it appeared to be accepted by the applicants that the subjective intent of the installation is not relevant to the construction of the statutory terms of the easement (see AT 3.11); and that, at most, it might be relevant to whether the proposed use was reasonably necessary for the better enjoyment of the benefited land. Hence, in my opinion it is not necessary here to explore further the question of Mr Breen’s purpose in installing the CCTV camera. It suffices to note that, when operating, it provides the owners of the lot benefited with vision of the passageway area outside the storage rooms.
无论如何，申请人似乎都接受了该装置的主观意图与地役权法定条款的解释无关（见第 3.11 条）;并且，它最多可能与拟议的用途是否为更好地享受受益土地而合理必要有关。因此，我认为这里没有必要进一步探讨 Breen 先生安装闭路电视摄像机的目的问题。值得注意的是，在运营时，它为受益地段的所有者提供了储藏室外通道区域的视野。

The primary judge noted that the installation of the CCTV camera would allow the applicants to decide when to go to the storage area without finding other people congregating in the same place ([16]). I interpose to note that one can well apprehend why that might be desirable when it is appreciated that there have been various interim Apprehended Violence Orders issued over the years in relation to various of the parties and it does not appear to be disputed that there is or has been a degree of hostility or animosity between them. The respondent herself referred in submissions to the orders made by the primary judge in the course of the proceedings being crafted to keep the parties apart.
主审法官指出，安装闭路电视摄像机将使申请人能够决定何时前往存储区域，而不会发现其他人聚集在同一个地方（[16]）。我插话指出，当人们认识到多年来已经针对各方发出了各种临时的暴力逮捕令，并且他们之间存在或曾经存在一定程度的敌意或敌意似乎没有争议时，人们可以很好地理解为什么这可能是可取的。答辩人本人在陈词中提到，主审法官在法律程序过程中作出的命令，旨在将双方分开。

The cabling from the CCTV camera installed on the lot burdened was connected to a CCTV monitoring system inside the lot benefited and it operated using electricity supplied to that lot ([16]). The primary judge noted that the CCTV camera was not otherwise connected to any external service provider of security monitoring services. In other words, it was described in submissions as a “closed system” (the images do not go into the “cloud’).
安装在受压地块上的闭路电视摄像机的电缆连接到受益地块内部的闭路电视监控系统，并使用提供给该地块的电力运行（[16]）。主审法官指出，闭路电视摄像机没有以其他方式连接到任何安全监控服务的外部服务提供商。换句话说，它在提交中被描述为“封闭系统”（图像不会进入“云”）中。

Ms Clough was not consulted before the installation and she demanded that it be removed. Mr Breen refused Ms Clough’s requests to remove the camera. Ms Clough then “boxed in” the camera so that it could not be used to provide any images for the benefit of the lot burdened. That was where the position remained at the time of the hearing before the primary judge ([17]).
在安装之前没有咨询 Clough 女士，她要求将其拆除。Breen 先生拒绝了 Clough 女士移除摄像头的要求。然后，Clough 女士将相机“装箱”，使其无法用于为负重人员提供任何图像。这就是在主审法官面前举行听证会时的立场（[17]）。

Primary judgment
初步判断

The matter first came before Slattery J in the Equity Division in 2022. His Honour, in his first judgment, settled what he referred to as a complex interlocutory regime to stabilise the conflict between the parties pending a final determination of the issues between them (see primary judgment at [1]).
此事于 2022 年首次提交给股票部门的 Slattery J。在他的第一次判决中，法官解决了他所说的复杂的中间机制，以稳定各方之间的冲突，直到他们之间的问题得到最终裁决（见初审判决第 [1] 项）。

His Honour initially considered that it might be useful to determine (by way of early determination) several legal issues before giving a final judgment on the contested facts but ultimately was of the view that only one of those issues could be decided early (that being the issue relating to the installation of the CCTV camera) since the others raised issues of credibility and reasonableness of use. Hence, his Honour said that the primary judgment dealt only with the limited facts necessary to resolve the issue which he described as the Storage Area Camera Issue.
法官最初认为，在对有争议的事实作出最终判决之前，确定（通过早期确定的方式）几个法律问题可能是有用的，但最终认为，其中一个问题可以提前决定（即与安装闭路电视摄像机有关的问题），因为其他问题提出了可信度和使用合理性的问题。因此，法官表示，主要判决仅涉及解决他所说的存储区域摄像头问题所需的有限事实。

His Honour noted at [18] that Easement I in the plan and the s 88B instrument was an easement for services; and that its terms are those contained in the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) (Conveyancing Act), Schedule 8 (which for Easement I had not been varied by the s 88B instrument). Although there was some debate about this at the hearing in this Court, it was ultimately accepted by the applicants that the terms of Easement I were as set out by his Honour and that no question as to the variation of the statutory terms by the s 88B instrument arose.
法官在 [18] 中指出，计划中的地役权 I 和第 88B 条文书是服务的地役权;其条款是 1919 年产权转让法（新南威尔士州）（产权转让法）附表 8 中包含的条款（对于地役权 I 没有被第 88B 条文书更改）。尽管在本法院的听证会上对此存在一些争论，但申请人最终接受了地役权 I 的条款是由法官制定的，并且不存在关于第 88B 条文书更改法定条款的问题。

The statutory terms of Schedule 8, Part 11, set out at [20] are:
附表 8 第 11 部分（第 [20] 节）的法定条款如下：

Part 11 Easement for Services
第 11 部分 服务地役权

1.   The owner of the lot benefited may--
1. 受益地段的拥有人可以 -

(a)   use each lot burdened, but only within the site of this easement, to provide domestic services to or from each lot benefited, and
（a） 使用每个有负担的地块，但仅限于本地役权的地点内，为每个受益地块提供家政服务，以及

(b)   do anything reasonably necessary for that purpose, including--
（b） 为此目的采取任何合理必要的行动，包括——

●   entering the lot burdened, and
● 满载而归

●   taking anything on to the lot burdened, and
● 承担任何负担，以及

●   carrying out work, such as constructing, placing, repairing or maintaining pipes, poles, wires, cables, conduits, structures and equipment.
● 开展工作，例如建造、放置、修理或维护管道、电线、电线、电缆、导管、结构和设备。

2.   In exercising those powers, the owner of the lot benefited must--
2. 在行使这些权力时，受益地段的拥有人必须——

(a)   ensure all work is done properly, and
（a） 确保所有工作均已妥善完成，以及

(b)   cause as little inconvenience as is practicable to the owner and any occupier of the lot burdened, and
（b） 在切实可行的范围内，尽可能减少对地段的拥有人和任何有负担的占用人造成的不便，以及

(c)   cause as little damage as is practicable to the lot burdened and any improvement on it, and
（c） 对所负担的地段及其任何改善造成尽可能小的损害，以及

(d)   restore the lot burdened as nearly as is practicable to its former condition, and
（d） 在切实可行的情况下，将负重的地段恢复到原来的状态，以及

(e)   make good any collateral damage.
（e） 赔偿任何附带损害。

3.   For the purposes of this easement, "domestic services" includes supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone and television and discharge of sewage, sullage and other fluid wastes.
3. 就本地役权而言，“家庭服务”包括水、煤气、电力、电话和电视的供应，以及污水、污水和其他液体废物的排放。

His Honour then briefly summarised the respective parties’ submissions (at [21]-[22]) before concluding that the respondent’s argument was the more persuasive on the issue ([23]). His Honour explained that conclusion from [23].
然后，法官简要总结了各方的陈词（第[21]-[22]段），然后得出结论，答辩人的论点在这个问题上更具说服力（[23]）。法官从 [23] 中解释了这一结论。

His Honour considered that the language of Schedule 8, Part 11 was clear, noting that the easement for services was to use the burdened lot “to provide domestic services to or from each lot benefited”; and that, to qualify as “services” within the Part 11 definition, the services must answer the description of being “domestic services” and must be services “to or from each lot benefited” ([23]).
法官认为附表 8 第 11 部分的措辞很明确，指出服务的地役权是使用负担地段“为每个受益地块提供家政服务”;并且，要符合第 11 部分定义中的“服务”的条件，服务必须回答“家庭服务”的描述，并且必须是“向或来自每个受益批次”的服务（[23]）。

His Honour initially said that the CCTV camera and associated cabling at the storeroom level did not qualify because they were neither “domestic services” nor were they services “to or from each lot benefited” ([23]). However, as noted below, his Honour seemingly later departed from the first part of that statement, in that he appeared to accept that the services were probably “domestic” (see at [28]).
法官最初表示，储藏室级别的闭路电视摄像机和相关电缆不符合条件，因为它们既不是“家庭服务”，也不是“往返于每个受益批次”的服务（[23]）。然而，如下所述，法官似乎后来偏离了该声明的第一部分，因为他似乎接受了这些服务可能是“国内的”（见 [28]）。

Importantly, for present purposes, his Honour accepted the respondent’s submission that the statutory definition of “easement for services” connoted the idea of “something that is provided by an outside supplier to the lot benefited” ([24]). The central challenge by the applicants to his Honour’s construction relates to this finding. His Honour then said that the use to which the applicants sought to put the CCTV camera (to observe what was happening on the land burdened by the easement) lay “outside that use”.
重要的是，就目前而言，法官接受了被告的陈词，即“服务地役权”的法定定义意味着“由外部供应商向受益地段提供的东西”的概念（[24]）。申请人对 His Honour 解释的主要挑战与这一发现有关。法官随后表示，申请人寻求放置闭路电视摄像机的用途（以观察受地役权影响的土地上发生的事情）属于“该用途之外”。

At [28], his Honour, having considered at [25]-[27] the dictionary definitions of “domestic” and “service”, accepted that a CCTV camera placed and used as the present one was could “probably” be described as a “domestic” activity, though then said that it did not have the “necessary connection with commercial and utility services demanded by or and [sic] supplied to the public”. His Honour said that the activity in question was “individual, discretionary, private, and not a part of something demanded by the public”.
在[28]中，法官在考虑了[25]-[27]中“家庭”和“服务”的字典定义后，接受了像现在一样放置和使用的闭路电视摄像机可以“可能”被描述为“家庭”活动，尽管随后表示它没有“与公众要求或向公众提供的商业和公用事业服务具有必要的联系”。法官表示，该活动是 “个人的、自由裁量的、私人的，不属于公众要求的一部分”。

However, his Honour went on at (at [29]) to say that:
然而，法官在（第[29]段）继续说：

But the additional qualification “to or from each lot benefited” also excludes the placement of a CCTV camera on the burdened lots for this purpose. The words “to or from each lot benefited” need to be interpreted within the structure of this easement. They neither say nor mean “to or from” just the burdened lot to the benefited lot. Consistent with the meaning of domestic service as here interpreted, the words “to or from each lot benefited” connote a “service” that at least enters, leaves or somehow accommodates the benefited lot from a public place through the burdened lot.
但“从每个受益地块”的额外资格也不排除为此目的在负担地块上放置闭路电视摄像机。“到或从每个受益的地块”一词需要在此地役权的结构中进行解释。他们既不说也不说 “从” 负重的地段到受益的地段。与此处解释的家政服务的含义一致，“到或从每个受益地段”一词意味着至少通过负担地段从公共场所进入、离开或以某种方式容纳受益地段的“服务”。

His Honour noted that, although only an inclusive definition, cl 3 of Part 11 defined domestic services as including “supply of water, gas, electricity, telephone and television and discharge of sewage, sullage and other fluid wastes”, which he regarded as broadly consistent with his interpretation ([29]).
法官指出，虽然只是一个包容性的定义，但第11部分的第3条将家政服务定义为包括“水、煤气、电力、电话和电视的供应以及污水、污水和其他液体废物的排放”，他认为这与他的解释大体一致（[29]）。

His Honour said that the applicants’ submission (that it was a domestic service for reasons including safety and security as well as control and management of the inclinator) gave insufficient weight to the applicable meaning of the word “services” and the words “to or from each lot benefited” in the expanded definition in Schedule 8 ([31]). His Honour gave, as an example sufficient to explain the problems that he considered would arise if the applicants’ interpretation were to be accepted, the example of setting up solar panels on the burdened land to generate electricity for the benefited lot; and said that could hardly be what was here intended ([32]).
法官说，申请人的陈词（出于安全和保安以及对倾销人的控制和管理等原因，这是一项家政服务）对附表8（[31]）中扩大定义中“服务”一词和“从每个受益批次”一词的适用含义给予了足够的重视。法官举了一个例子，足以解释他认为如果申请人的解释被接受，会出现的问题，例子是在负担不足的土地上设置太阳能电池板，为受益地段发电;并说这不可能是这里的意图（[32]）。

Hence, his Honour concluded that the CCTV camera was an impermissible fixture placed on Easement I, which was a trespass, and that it could and should be removed. His Honour proceeded to make orders intended to allow the smooth and orderly removal of the camera; and stayed the operation of those orders until 3 February 2023 to enable any disputes about their implementation to be resolved in the period between 30 January and 3 February 2023.
因此，法官得出结论，闭路电视摄像机是放置在地役权 I 上的不允许的固定装置，这是一种侵入行为，可以而且应该拆除。大人开始下令，旨在允许顺利和有序地移除相机;并将这些命令的实施暂停至 2023 年 2 月 3 日，以便在 2023 年 1 月 30 日至 2 月 3 日期间解决有关其实施的任何争议。

As adverted to earlier, at [37], his Honour said that there had not been a separate determination of this issue (the Storage Area Camera Issue) under r 28.2 of the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules 2005 (NSW) and therefore it would be unnecessary (to preserve rights of appeal) for any party to appeal from the orders he was then making until judgment was given in respect of all other outstanding issues at trial.
正如上文所述，在[37]中，法官表示，根据《2005年统一民事诉讼规则》（新南威尔士州）第28.2条，尚未就此问题（存储区域摄像头问题）作出单独裁决，因此，在对审判中所有其他未决问题作出判决之前，任何一方都没有必要（保留上诉权）对他当时做出的命令提出上诉。

Final judgment on liability on the remaining issues was handed down on 22September 2023 (orders having earlier been made on 31 August 2023) (see Clough v Breen (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 1155). Judgment on damages was handed down on 9 April 2024 (Clough v Breen (No 5) [2024] NSWSC 337). The latest judgment, which was handed down on 18 December 2024, was Clough v Breen (No. 6) [2024] NSWSC 1634, which dealt with, among other things, an application for a gross sum costs order (and from which it appears that a further CCTV camera was installed by the applicants at or near landing 6).
其余问题的责任最终判决于 2023 年 9 月 22 日下达 （命令早前已于 2023 年 8 月 31 日下达）（见 Clough v Breen （No 4） [2023] NSWSC 1155）。损害赔偿判决于 2024 年 4 月 9 日下达 （Clough v Breen （No 5） [2024] NSWSC 337）。2024 年 12 月 18 日颁下的最新判决是 Clough v Breen （No. 6） [2024] NSWSC 1634，该判决涉及（其中包括）总金额令的申请（从该命令中可以看出，申请人在 6 号平台或附近安装了另一台闭路电视摄像机）。

Proposed Grounds of Appeal
拟议上诉理由

As noted above, only one ground of appeal is now sought to be raised:
如上所述，现在只寻求提出一个上诉理由：

1.   The primary judge erred at [J33] of Clough v Breen (No 2) in finding that a CCTV camera is an impermissible fixture placed upon Easement I and a trespass, on the grounds that:
1.   主审法官在 Clough v Breen （No 2） 的 [J33] 中错误地认定闭路电视摄像机是放置在地役权 I 上的不允许的固定装置和侵犯行为，理由是：

a.   The primary judge made the finding at [J32] that a CCTV camera is not a “domestic service” within the meaning of Part 11, Schedule 8 of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), contrary to the finding of the primary judge at [sic; that] the service “enters, leaves or somehow accommodates the benefited lot from a public place through the burdened lot” to constitute a “domestic service”: [J29] of Clough v Breen (No 2); and
a.   主审法官在 [J32] 中裁定，闭路电视摄像机不属于《1919 年产权转让法》（新南威尔士州）附表 8 第 11 部分所指的“家政服务”，这与主审法官在 [原文如此;] 中的裁定相反，即该服务“通过负担地段从公共场所进入、离开或以某种方式容纳受益地段”，构成“家政服务”： Clough v Breen （No 2） 的 [J29];以及

b.   In the alternative, the primary judge failed to give consideration to the appellants’ submission that the CCTV camera is permissible by way of extension of rights because they are necessarily ancillary to the beneficial exercise of the primary easement rights, namely rights which are implicitly granted to the appellants as proprietors of land gaining the benefit of the easement, to do what is necessary for quiet enjoyment of that easement, and if the primary judge had considered that submission, the finding would not have been made.
b.在另一种情况下，主审法官没有考虑上诉人的陈词，即闭路电视摄像机可以通过延伸权利的方式被允许使用，因为它们必然附属于主要地役权的有益行使，即默示授予上诉人作为获得地役权利益的土地所有者的权利。 采取必要的措施来安静地享受该地役权，如果主审法官考虑了该意见，就不会做出裁决。

Leave
离开

The applicants submit that Ground 1 raises a point of law (challenging the correctness of the primary judge’s definition of “domestic service” in the context of the reasonable use of an easement), which they say is a matter of public importance and legal principle; and hence it is an appropriate case for a grant of leave (if leave be necessary).
申请人提出，理由 1 提出了一个法律问题（在合理使用地役权的背景下质疑主审法官对“家政服务”定义的正确性），他们认为这是一个具有公共重要性和法律原则的问题;因此，这是批准许可的适当情况（如果需要许可）。

In that regard, the applicants say that the primary judgment appears to be the only published judgment on this issue; and hence that the correctness of his Honour’s construction of the term will bear upon the use of easements and the resolution of any future legal disputes which rely on the Court’s interpretation of the defined term. They argue that the public would benefit from a clear and correct delineation of the rights of parties to future disputes of this nature, of which they say that there would likely be many given the prevalence of the use of easements in residential property in New South Wales. (One can only hope that there will not in future be a proliferation of disputes between neighbours pursued with the vigour of this one.)
在这方面，申请人表示，主要判决似乎是关于此问题的唯一已公布的判决;因此，法官对该术语的解释的正确性将影响到地役权的使用和任何未来法律纠纷的解决，这些纠纷取决于法院对定义术语的解释。他们认为，对未来此类性质的争议的各方权利进行清晰和正确的划定将使公众受益，他们表示，鉴于新南威尔士州在住宅物业中普遍使用地役权，可能会有很多争议。（我们只能希望将来不会像这次那样激烈地追求邻国之间的争端激增。

The applicants further argue that the use of an easement for the provision of safety and security to a residential property is an important matter. Finally, the applicants say that the operative provision is “old”, such that there is a public benefit to a modern interpretation of the notion of a domestic service which promotes the attainment of the object of the legislature (the applicants noting, for example, that there is no reference in the relevant provision to internet services).
申请人进一步争辩说，使用地役权为住宅物业提供安全和保障是一个重要问题。最后，申请人表示，执行条款是“古老的”，因此对家政服务概念的现代解释促进实现立法机关的目标具有公共利益（例如，申请人指出，相关条款中没有提及互联网服务）。

The respondent accepts that the correct construction of the definition of a “domestic service” for the purposes of the Conveyancing Act could be a matter of public importance for the purposes of granting leave but contends that leave should not be granted because the applicants have failed to show any error in the approach by his Honour to the construction of that term; and they maintain that his Honour determined what was plainly the correct construction.
答辩人承认，就《物业转易法令》而言，对「家政服务」定义的正确解释，对于批给许可而言，可能是一个具有公众重要性的事项，但辩称不应给予许可，因为申请人未能证明法官对该词的解释有任何错误;他们坚持认为，法官法官确定了什么是明显的正确建设。

Determination as to leave
决定离开

For leave to be granted, if leave be necessary, it is well established that the party seeking leave must show an issue of principle, a question of public importance, or a reasonably clear injustice going beyond what is reasonably arguable (see Be Financial Pty Limited as Trustee for Be Financial Operations Trust v DAS [2012] NSWCA 164 at [32]-[38]).
要获得许可，如果许可是必要的，则众所周知，寻求许可的一方必须证明存在原则问题、具有公共重要性的问题或超出合理争议范围的合理明显的不公正（参见 Be Financial Pty Limited 作为受托人 Be Financial Operations Trust v DAS [2012] NSWCA 164，第 [32]-[38] 页）。

In the present case, the sole issue for determination relates to the correct construction of the easement for services. The decision reached by his Honour in this regard led to a finding of trespass (and the orders for the removal of the CCTV camera). In my opinion, this is a case where there is a reasonably clear injustice going beyond what is reasonably arguable. That is because, with respect to the primary judge, I consider that the construction placed on the term “domestic services” is incorrect; and hence the applicants should not have been found liable for trespass in relation to the installation of the CCTV camera nor should they have been required to remove an installation that was within the authorised use permitted by the easement.
在本案中，唯一需要确定的问题与服务地役权的正确构造有关。法官在这方面做出的决定导致了非法侵入的裁决（以及拆除闭路电视摄像机的命令）。在我看来，这是一个存在合理明显的不公正的案件，超出了合理争论的范围。这是因为，就主审法官而言，我认为对“家政服务”一词的解释是不正确的;因此，申请人不应被认定对与安装闭路电视摄像机有关的侵入行为负责，也不应被要求拆除位于地役权允许的授权用途内的装置。

Leave to appeal, to the extent necessary, should therefore be granted.
因此，在必要的范围内，应给予上诉许可。

Turning then to the sole ground of appeal, I deal with the two sub-grounds as follows.
然后，转向唯一的上诉理由，我将以下两个子理由处理。

Ground 1(a) – construction of “domestic services”
理由 1（a） – 构建“家政服务”

Applicants’ submissions
申请人提交的内容

The applicants contend that the primary judge’s interpretation of this term (as requiring that there be a supply of services from an external party) is unduly restrictive and places an impermissible gloss on the definition, in that it reads additional words into the definition (which says nothing about the need for the services to come from an external party).
申请人认为，主审法官对该术语的解释（如要求外部方提供服务）具有过分的限制性，并且对定义进行了不允许的修饰，因为它在定义中读出了额外的词语（没有说明服务需要来自外部方）。

The applicants say that, on its terms, the provision is clearly directed at permitting the reasonable use of the easement to facilitate the provision of necessary amenities to a home and they contend that this is not determined by whether the amenity comes from an external provider (or is supplied by the owner of the lot burdened itself).
申请人表示，就其条款而言，该条款显然旨在允许合理使用地役权，以促进为房屋提供必要的便利设施，他们争辩说，这并不取决于便利设施是否来自外部提供者（或由负担自己的地块的所有者提供）。

As to the solar panel example given by the primary judge at [32] (see above), as something that would not be thought to have been intended within the term “domestic services”, the applicants say it would be extraordinary if it were reasonably necessary to put a solar panel on an easement of the kind in issue when it could plainly go on the roof of the relevant dwelling. However, they submit that the use of solar panels more broadly raises an important point which is demonstrative of the unworkable nature of a restrictive definition which hinges upon the presence of a third party provider.
至于主审法官在[32]中举出的太阳能电池板的例子（见上文），作为“家政服务”一词中不打算使用的东西，申请人表示，如果太阳能电池板在可以明显安装在相关住宅屋顶上的情况下，将太阳能电池板放在有争议的地役权上是合理的，那将是非同寻常的。然而，他们认为，更广泛地使用太阳能电池板提出了一个重要问题，该观点表明了取决于第三方提供商的存在的限制性定义是不可行的。

In that regard, while the applicants accept that a solar panel is a means of supplying electricity to a residence which does not come from a third party, they submit that it is conceivable (if not likely) that a situation may arise where infrastructure (including cabling) for the provision of electricity from a solar panel may necessarily traverse an easement. They say that in such circumstances, and notwithstanding that the text of the provision expressly refers to the supply of electricity as constituting a domestic service, the primary judge’s definition restricts the supply of electricity to that which is provided by an external supplier, rather than being supplied from a solar panel.
在这方面，虽然申请人承认太阳能电池板是向住宅供电的一种方式，而这种方式并非来自第三方，但他们认为，可以想象（如果不太可能）出现这样一种情况：从太阳能电池板供电的基础设施（包括电缆）可能必然穿过地役权。他们说，在这种情况下，尽管该条款的文本明确提到电力供应构成家庭服务，但主审法官的定义将电力供应限制在由外部供应商提供的电力供应，而不是由太阳能电池板供应的电力供应。

The applicants give further illustrations of what they contend is the unworkable nature of the primary judge’s definition, which I do not here need to set out in great detail (those being: the supply of water from a rainwater tank, rather than from an external provider; and the discharge of sewerage from a sewerage system connected to a septic tank rather than an external provider’s system).
申请人进一步说明了他们认为主审法官的定义不行，我在这里无需详细阐述（这些定义是：从雨水池而不是外部供应商供水;以及从连接到化粪池而不是外部供应商系统的污水系统排放污水）。

The applicants say that the respondent’s construction is one that prefers form over substance. The applicants argue that, as a matter of substance, there is no discernible or substantive difference between a camera that feeds directly into the applicants’ home and one that send the footage via an external provider.
申请人表示，被申请人的解释是注重形式而不是实质。申请人辩称，就实质而言，直接馈送至申请人家中的摄像机与通过外部提供商发送录像的摄像机之间没有明显或实质性的区别。

The applicants contend that the construction of the definition should be directed at the question whether the relevant use of the easement conforms with the provision of a reasonably necessary amenity to the relevant domicile. The applicants complain that, rather than adopting this approach, the primary judge adopted a strict word-by-word definitional approach (or, as they described in oral submissions, an approach which preferred “an artificial dissection word by word rather than a holistic and purposive approach” – see AT 20.31). The applicants say that this approach has distracted from consideration of the object of the provision and that the primary judge was led into error in this respect.
申请人认为，该定义的解释应针对地役权的相关用途是否符合为相关住所提供合理必要的便利设施的问题。申请人抱怨说，主审法官没有采用这种方法，而是采用了严格的逐字定义方法（或者，正如他们在口头陈词中所描述的那样，这种方法更喜欢“逐字人工剖析，而不是整体和有目的的方法”——见第 20.31 页）。申请人表示，这种方法分散了对条款目标的考虑，并且主审法官在这方面被引导犯了错误。

Further, the applicants say that imposing a restrictive definition is at odds with the object of the Property Legislation (Easements) Bill 1995 (NSW) (Bill), which made amendments to the Conveyancing Act including, relevantly, the addition of Part 11 of Schedule 8. It is noted that this object (provided in the overview of the Bill) is expressed as “giving expanded meaning to short form words” when they are used in the context of easements such as the present.
此外，申请人表示，施加限制性定义与《1995 年财产立法（地役权）法案》（新南威尔士州）（法案）的目标不一致，该法案对《产权转让法》进行了修订，包括相应地增加附表 8 的第 11 部分。值得注意的是，当该对象（在法案概述中提供）用于地役权（例如现在）时，它们被表示为“赋予短格式词扩展含义”。

Finally, the applicants say that the primary judge erred in misconstruing the plain words of the provision which require that the domestic service must be provided “to or from each lot benefited”. The applicants submit that the CCTV camera does in fact pass a service to the applicants’ lot from the lot of the respondent (that is, from the easement site). It is submitted that, in interpreting that the service must pass through the lot from a public place, the primary judge has added an additional condition which does not exist in the text of the provision (namely, that the service comes from a public place).
最后，申请人表示，主审法官错误地误解了该条款的直白措辞，该条款要求必须“向每个受益的批次或从每个受益批次”提供家政服务。申请人提出，闭路电视摄像机实际上确实从被申请人的地块（即地役权现场）向申请人的地块传递了一项服务。据称，在解释服务必须从公共场所穿过该地段时，主审法官增加了一个附加条件，该条件在该条款的文本中不存在（即服务来自公共场所）。

Respondent’s submissions
受访者的陈词

The respondent maintains the argument made at the hearing (by reference to the Schedule 8, Part 11 definition of the term “domestic service”) that a “service” is something that is provided by an outside supplier to the lot benefited and that it does not embrace an “internal” CCTV system.
答辩人维持在聆讯中提出的论点（参考附表 8 第 11 部分对“家政服务”一词的定义），即“服务”是由外部供应商向受益地段提供的东西，并且不包括“内部”闭路电视系统。

The respondent accepts that the s 88B Instrument does not exhaustively define the term “domestic services” and, as such, an LAN cable and associated conduit fall within the definition of “domestic services” (see at [22]); and the respondent concedes that the word “includes” in the definition tends to indicate non-exhaustiveness. However, the respondent says that the use of the word “includes” in the definition needs to be read in conjunction with the remainder of the clause (referring in particular to sub-cl (3)), such that it should be concluded that the included “services” are “services” sourced externally and brought onto the land.
被投诉人承认，第 88B 条文书并未详尽定义“国内服务”一词，因此，LAN 电缆和相关管道属于“国内服务”的定义范围（见 [22]）;答辩人承认，定义中的“包括”一词往往表示非详尽无遗。然而，答辩人表示，定义中“包括”一词的使用需要与该条款的其余部分（特别是第（3）款）一起理解，因此应得出结论，所包含的“服务”是来自外部并带到土地上的“服务”。

The applicant argues that this follows from the examples given in the definition of domestic services, which the respondent says are all “services” which involve something coming to (or from) the property via an external supplier. The respondent says that an internal camera system, connected with no external service provider, cannot be considered a “service” in the context of the other examples given in the definition.
申请人辩称，这源于家政服务定义中给出的例子，被申请人表示，家政服务都是涉及通过外部供应商进出物业的“服务”。受访者表示，在定义中给出的其他示例的上下文中，没有与外部服务提供商连接的内部摄像头系统不能被视为“服务”。

Determination as to Ground 1(a)
关于理由 1（a） 的裁定

The principles of statutory construction are well-known and do not need here to be repeated (see Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; [1988] HCA 28). They were not in dispute before his Honour.
法定释义的原则是众所周知的，这里无需重复（见Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority （1998） 194 CLR 355;[1988] HCA 28）。他们在大人面前没有争议。

In the present case, given his Honour’s acceptance (albeit in qualified terms) that the service in question was “domestic” and this was not here contested, it is not necessary to dwell on that aspect of the definition. Suffice it to say that, whether for safety and security purposes or simply for convenience, a system that permits the owners of the benefited lot to ascertain whether the passageway area outside their storage room is occupied by others would as a matter of common sense be seen as a “domestic”, not commercial or public, use.
在本案中，鉴于法官接受（尽管是有限制的）有关服务是“国内”服务，而这在这里没有争议，因此没有必要详述该定义的这一方面。可以说，无论是为了安全和安保目的，还是仅仅为了方便，如果一个系统允许受益地段的所有者确定其储藏室外的通道区域是否被其他人占用，作为常识问题，将被视为“家庭”用途，而不是商业或公共用途。

Therefore, one must here focus on the requirement that there be a service “to or from” the lot benefited. It is of course necessary to identify the service in question. Here, it was the conveying of images to the benefited lot (whether for or with the aim of enabling the applicants to see what was happening in the passageway area or for safety and security reasons). It was accepted by the applicants that the installation of a CCTV camera for nefarious purposes (say, for voyeurism) would not be permissible (see AT 22.45) but again that seems to intrude the concept of purpose into the construction of the definition. More precisely, if the CCTV camera had been installed for voyeuristic purposes (and there was no suggestion that it was in this case) then it could hardly be said to be reasonably necessary for the better enjoyment of the benefited lot and hence would not be authorised for that reason.
因此，这里必须关注有“往返”受益地段的服务的要求。当然，有必要确定有问题的服务。在这里，是将图像传达给受益地段（无论是为了还是为了让申请人看到通道区域发生的事情，或者出于安全和安保的原因）。申请人同意，为邪恶目的（例如，为了窥淫癖）而安装闭路电视摄像机是不允许的（见第22.45段），但这似乎再次将目的的概念侵入了定义的解释中。更准确地说，如果闭路电视摄像机是出于窥淫癖目的而安装的（而且没有迹象表明在这种情况下是这样），那么很难说它是为了更好地享受受益地段而合理必要的，因此不会因此而获得授权。

The crux of the issue is whether, as his Honour found, it is necessary for the purpose of the definition that whatever be “supplied” by way of a “service” “to or from” the benefited lot be something supplied from an entity off the property.
问题的关键在于，正如法官所发现的那样，就定义而言，是否有必要以“服务”的方式“向受益地段或从中受益地段”提供“任何东西，都是由该物业以外的实体提供的东西。

There was some debate at the hearing in this Court as to whether it had been accepted by the respondent before the primary judge that, if the CCTV footage was sourced through or monitored by an external provider, the installation would be a permissible use (see transcript before his Honour at 19/05/22; T 556.1-6). The respondent’s position in this Court was squarely put as being that the relevant (fairly narrow) question was whether the applicants were “accessing a service from off the property and bringing it onto the property” (AT 28.45). The respondent does not accept that it was conceded before the primary judge that it would be within the permissible use of the easement if the camera were connected to a remote monitoring service (19/05/22; T 540.46-T 541.8); the respondent’s position being that such a connection would not suffice because the outside software or internet service was not “providing” the service.
在本法院的听证会上，就答辩人在主审法官面前是否接受，如果闭路电视录像是通过外部供应商获取或由外部供应商监控的，则该装置将属于允许的用途，存在一些争论（见 22 年 5 月 19 日法官面前的笔录;T 556.1-6）。答辩人在本法院的立场是，相关（相当狭隘的）问题是申请人是否“从物业外获得服务并将其带到物业内”（AT 28.45）。被告不接受在主审法官面前承认，如果摄像头连接到远程监控服务（19/05/22;T 540.46-T 541.8）;被申请人的立场是，这种连接是不够的，因为外部软件或互联网服务没有“提供”该服务。

Therefore, the narrow question is whether the concept of service “to or from” the lot benefited requires that the service be supplied by someone off the property. In my opinion, it does not. I consider that the primary judge’s reliance on dictionary definitions led his Honour into error. There is nothing in the statutory terms of the easement for services that, read in a common sense way or in their natural meaning, requires the source of the domestic service to be from an external provider. Rather, what is required is that the service be “to” or “from” the lot benefited. Here, the activity or service (of providing images of the passageway area outside the storage rooms) is a service that is clearly “to” the lot benefited. In ordinary language that suffices to bring the use within the terms of the easement. The non-exhaustive examples in sub-cl (3) do not mandate the opposite conclusion (and as the applicants have shown the provision of some of those services could be internal in the sense of not provided through an external service provider in any event). The respondent’s examples of, in effect, the potential overreach of the applicants’ construction (akin to a floodgates argument) are most likely to be met through the requirement that the use be reasonably necessary for the better enjoyment of the benefited land.
因此，狭隘的问题是，“到或来自”受益地段的服务概念是否要求服务由物业以外的人提供。在我看来，它不是。我认为，主审法官对字典定义的依赖导致了他的法官犯了错误。地役权的法定条款中，从常识或自然含义来看，没有任何内容要求家政服务的来源来自外部供应商。相反，要求的是服务是“到”或“来自”受益的地段。在这里，活动或服务（提供储藏室外通道区域的图像）显然是一项“对”受益地段的服务。用普通语言来说，这足以使使用符合地役权的条款。第（3）款中的非详尽例子并不要求得出相反的结论（正如申请人所表明的那样，其中一些服务的提供可能是内部的，即在任何情况下都不是通过外部服务提供商提供的）。答辩人关于申请人的建筑可能越权的例子（类似于闸门论点）最有可能通过要求使用对于更好地享受受益土地是合理必要的来实现的。

There being no contention at the hearing below that this was not a reasonably necessary use, that is the end of the matter. Ground 1(a) is made good and the declaration and orders made by the primary judge premised on this being an impermissible use should be set aside.
在下面的听证会上，没有人争论这不是合理必要的使用，这就是事情的结局。理由 1（a） 已得到纠正，主审法官以此为不允许使用为前提而作出的声明和命令应予撤销。

Ground 1(b) – ancillary rights
理由 1（b） – 附属权利

Applicants’ submissions
申请人提交的内容

In the alternative, the applicants contend that the primary judge failed to give consideration to their submission that the CCTV camera is permissible by way of extension of rights because it is necessarily ancillary to the beneficial exercise of the primary easement rights (namely rights which are implicitly granted to the applicants as proprietors of the land, gaining the benefit of the easement, to do what is necessary for the quiet enjoyment of that easement). The applicants contend that if the primary judge had considered that submission the impugned finding would not have been made.
在另一种情况下，申请人辩称，主审法官没有考虑他们的意见，即闭路电视摄像机可以通过扩大权利的方式被允许使用，因为它必然是主要地役权的有益行使的附属物（即默示授予申请人作为土地所有者的权利， 获得地役权的利益，为安静地享受该地役权做必要的事情）。申请人争辩说，如果主审法官考虑了该意见，就不会做出有争议的裁决。

In that regard, the applicants submit that the camera was placed for legitimate security and safety reasons which are consistent with the quiet use and enjoyment of the land. The applicants say that their unchallenged evidence conforms precisely with the underlying purpose of the provision, namely, to facilitate the provision of amenities.
在这方面，申请人认为，放置摄像头是出于合法的安保和安全原因，这与安静地使用和享受土地是一致的。申请人表示，他们未经质疑的证据恰好符合该条款的根本目的，即促进便利设施的提供。

Respondent’s submissions
受访者的陈词

As to the argument that the applicants were permitted to install the CCTV camera in the easement “by way of extension of rights” (because they are “necessarily ancillary to the beneficial exercise of the primary easement rights … which are implicitly granted to [the respective parties] as proprietors of land gaining the benefit of the easement, to do what is necessary for quite enjoyment of that easement”) (see submissions at [23]), the respondent complains that this argument was not raised at the hearing.
至于申请人被允许“通过扩大权利”在地役权中安装闭路电视摄像机的论点（因为它们“必须附属于主要地役权的有益行使......这些被隐含地授予 [各方] 作为获得地役权利益的土地的所有者，以做充分享受该地役权所必需的事情“（见 [23] 中的陈词），被告抱怨说，这一论点在听证会上没有提出。

The respondent says that the argument that was raised at first instance (referring to [24]-[25] of the applicants’ submissions), as reproduced in the primary judgment at [21], framed the applicants’ case on the CCTV camera issue as being that “[t]he only question is whether a CCTV falls within the definition of ‘domestic services’ as defined”. The respondent says that this is the question the primary judge considered and answered.
被申请人表示，一审时提出的论点（指申请人提交的 [24]-[25]），如原审判决书 [21] 所示，将申请人关于闭路电视摄像机问题的案件定性为“唯一的问题是闭路电视是否属于所定义的'家政服务'的定义”。被告说，这是主审法官考虑和回答的问题。

The respondent says that an appeal is not the occasion for the making of some second, different, case (citing Crampton v R (2000) 206 CLR 161 at 217; [2000] HCA 60). It is noted that the primary judge did not hear some of the preliminary issues that had been identified because those issues could not be decided in “a vacuum”. The respondent points out that the applicants had objected to some of the issues being heard because they were making an argument concerning ancillary rights which involved the Court deciding questions of fact as to reasonableness of use and creditability (the respondent here referring to what was said in the primary judgment at [12]-[14]). At [14] of the primary judgment, his Honour referred to the reframing of the applicants’ argument (as to the use of the call button at landing 1) as one based on express and ancillary rights (at [14]) but to the CCTV camera issue not having such difficulties.
答辩人说，上诉不是提出第二个不同案件的场合（引用Crampton v R （2000） 206 CLR 161，第217页;[2000] HCA 60）。值得注意的是，主审法官没有听取一些已确定的初步问题，因为这些问题不能在“真空”中做出决定。答辩人指出，申请人反对审理某些问题，因为他们就附属权利提出论点，涉及法院决定有关使用合理性和可信度的事实问题（答辩人此处指的是 [12]-[14] 初审判决中所说的内容）。在初审判决的 [14] 中，法官提到将申请人的论点（关于在着陆 1 时使用呼叫按钮）重新定义为基于明示和附属权利的论点（在 [14] 中），但指出闭路电视摄像机问题没有这样的困难。

The respondent says that the argument that the applicants now raise (of whether the CCTV camera was necessarily ancillary to the beneficial exercise of the primary easement) is a question of mixed fact and law that was not traversed during the hearing and should not now be permitted to be raised. The respondent emphasises that the applicants did not argue that the CCTV camera issue was one that “involved making judgments about ancillary rights and the reasonableness of the use” (and says that, had they done so, his Honour would not have determined that issue at the interlocutory hearing). The respondent says that it would be plainly prejudicial to her for the question of ancillary rights to be heard now given the course the applicants took at the hearing.
被申请人说，申请人现在提出的论点（关于闭路电视摄像机是否必然是主要地役权的有益行使的附属物）是一个混合事实和法律的问题，在听证会期间没有涉及，现在不应允许提出。答辩人强调，申请人没有争辩说闭路电视摄像机问题是“涉及对附属权利和使用合理性的判断”的问题（并表示，如果他们这样做了，法官就不会在非正审听证会上决定这个问题）。答辩人表示，鉴于申请人在听证会上采取的措施，现在听取附属权利的问题显然对她不利。

Determination as to Ground 1(b)
关于理由 1（b） 的裁定

It is not necessary to address this alternative ground in light of the conclusion reached on Ground 1(a) save to note that, insofar as the issue of ancillary rights raises questions of credibility and reasonableness of use, there is force to the respondent’s complaint that the stance now taken by the applicants is inconsistent with the approach taken by the primary judge and they should be bound by the forensic choice made at first instance.
根据根据理由 1（a） 得出的结论，没有必要讨论这一替代理由，但需要注意的是，只要附属权利问题引发了使用的可信度和合理性问题，答辩人的投诉就有说服力，即申请人现在采取的立场与主审法官所采取的方法不一致，他们应该受到最初做出的法医选择的约束实例。

Conclusion
结论

For the reasons above, I would allow the appeal. Costs ordinarily follow the event but in this case the applicants abandoned the bulk of the proposed grounds of appeal shortly prior to the hearing and they accept that they should pay the costs thrown away by reason thereof. Therefore, I consider that the applicants should pay the respondents’ costs of the summons seeking leave to appeal and the appeal that have been thrown away by the abandonment of all proposed grounds of appeal other than Ground 1; and that the respondent pay the applicants’ costs of the ground of appeal on which the applicants succeeded (Ground 1(a)). The applicants’ costs of the argument of the CCTV issue in the Court below (which was dealt with as a separate issue from other issues in the hearing) should be paid by the respondent.
基于上述原因，我会允许上诉。讼费通常会在事件发生后产生，但在本案中，申请人在聆讯前不久放弃了大部分拟议的上诉理由，并接受他们应支付因此而放弃的讼费。因此，我认为申请人应支付答辩人因寻求上诉许可的传票和因放弃除理由 1 之外的所有拟议上诉理由而被放弃的上诉的费用;以及答辩人支付申请人胜诉的上诉理由的申请人费用（理由 1（a））。申请人在下级法院就闭路电视问题进行辩论的费用（在听证会上作为与其他问题分开处理）应由被申请人支付。

Hence, the orders I propose are:
因此，我建议的命令是：

Leave to appeal be granted.
批准上诉许可。

Allow the appeal on Ground 1(a).
基于理由 1（a） 的上诉获得批准。

Set aside the Declaration (in Order 1) and Order 2 of the orders made by Slattery J on 19 December 2022 and in lieu thereof declare that the defendants are authorised by Easement I to place, maintain and use the CCTV camera installed at the storage area level below landing 5 on the area of the plaintiff’s land that is burdened by Easement 1.
撤销 Slattery 法官于 2022 年 12 月 19 日作出的命令的声明（第 1 号命令）和第 2 号命令，并以此代替地宣布被告经地役权 I 授权，在原告受地役权 1 约束的区域上放置、维护和使用安装在平台 5 下方存储区域层的闭路电视摄像机。

Order the applicants to pay the respondent’s costs thrown away by the abandonment of the proposed grounds of appeal other than Ground 1.
命令申请人支付答辩人因放弃理由 1 以外的拟议上诉理由而放弃的讼费。

Order the respondent to pay the applicants’ costs of Ground 1(a) of the appeal.
命令被申请人支付上诉理由 1（a） 的申请人费用。

Order the respondent to pay the applicants’ costs of the argument in the proceeding at first instance as to the Storage Area Camera issue.
命令被申请人支付申请人在一审程序中关于存储区域摄像头问题的辩论费用。

STERN JA: I agree with Ward P.
STERN JA：我同意 Ward P 的观点。

GRIFFITHS AJA: I agree with Ward P.
GRIFFITHS AJA：我同意 Ward P 的观点。

**********

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
免责声明 - 已尽一切努力遵守可能适用于本判决或决定的禁止发布的禁止令或法律规定。任何在判决或决定中使用材料的人都有责任确保该材料的预期用途不会违反任何此类命令或规定。如有进一步的询问，请直接向产生该调查的法院或审裁处的登记处查询。