First published 30 Oct 2026, 10:04am
A Sydney woman who dragged her neighbours to the Supreme Court over a carport post jutting just three centimetres onto her land has walked away without a costs judgment after rejecting a $20,000 settlement offer.
Jian Min Xu, from Lane Cove North, had demanded more than $56,000 after a boundary dispute with neighbours Royalston and Meredith Martin spiralled into an expensive legal war. But in a stinging result, the NSW Supreme Court ruled the encroachments were minor, the Martins hadn’t acted unreasonably, and both sides would have to wear their own legal costs.
‘Financially ruined’: Landlords face $2m clean-up
‘Torture’: Neighbour caught hurling dirty nappies across fence
‘Playing me’: Mum faces losing home after boss betrayal
According to court documents published on the New South Wales Caselaw website , the feud began in June 2022 when Ms Xu hired a surveyor while planning a new dividing fence.
That survey found parts of the Martins’ garage and carport crossed onto her property.
The structures, which had stood since 1984, included a garage eave and gutter, a carport gutter, and a single carport post that crossed the boundary by just 11 centimetres.
Ms Xu formally raised the issue in September 2023 and asked that the structures be removed. The Martins then obtained their own survey, which they said showed there was no encroachment.
A survey found the carport post encroached onto her property by about three centimetres
The disagreement was later referred for a boundary determination.
In February 2025, the Registrar-General found there were encroachments of about 13 centimetres for the garage eave and gutter, 13 centimetres for the carport gutter, and three centimetres for the carport post.
After that, the Martins accepted the determination and did not dispute the need to remove the encroachments.
Ms Xu wrote in March 2025 demanding the structures be removed within 14 days.
Mr Martin replied that he was overseas and said the work would be carried out as soon as possible on his return.
Some work was subsequently completed in early April 2025, when a plumber removed the carport gutter and downpipe, the court heard.
But the remaining encroachments were more complicated, requiring roofing work and advice from a licensed builder.
In emails tendered to the court, Mr Martin said the work had been identified, scoped and booked, telling Ms Xu: “we feel we are doing everything possible to address the issues”.
Jian Min Xu from Sydney took her neighbours to the NSW Supreme Court after discovering their carport encroached onto her land. Source: LinkedIn
Ms Xu was unconvinced and in July 2025 launched Supreme Court proceedings seeking orders for the remaining structures to be removed, along with damages for alleged trespass and interference with her land.
She later commissioned another survey, which identified additional encroachments of between one and three centimetres. The Martins agreed to remove those too.
By May 2026, all of the identified encroachments had been removed.
The following month, Ms Xu sought $56,649.37 to settle her claim.
The Martins refused and instead offered $20,000 to end the proceedings. She said no.
The substantive dispute was subsequently resolved on an undisclosed basis leaving only the question of costs for the court to decide.
In a judgment delivered October 22, Justice Ian Pike found there was no evidence the Martins had behaved unreasonably and no basis to make them pay Ms Xu’s legal bills.
NSW Supreme Court Justice Ian Pike.
“Prior to the boundary determination, there was a legitimate dispute as to the location of the boundary and thus whether there were any encroachments,” he said.
“The alleged encroachments relate to structures which have been in place since 1984.
“The boundary determination found that there were some encroachments, although it must be observed that they were of a relevantly minor nature.”
The judge found the structures had not seriously affected Ms Xu’s use or enjoyment of her property, though they may have interfered with her plans to build a dividing fence.
He also dismissed any suggestion the Martins had dragged their feet or refused to act.
“At no stage did the defendants indicate that they would not remove the encroachments. I do not regard the time taken as indicating any implicit refusal to do the work,” Justice Pike said.
He said the couple had not “capitulated or surrendered” because there had never been a real position of opposition.
Instead, they had simply done what they said they would do all along – remove the encroachments as soon as possible.
Help us improve your reading experience
Got a minute? Your feedback will help us build a better experience for you.
