A Sydney woman who took her neighbours to the Supreme Court over a carport that crossed the boundary by just three centimetres has been left without a payout after turning down a $20,000 settlement offer.
Jian Min Xu, a nurse from Sydney’s affluent Lower North Shore, had sought $56,649 from Royalston and Meredith Martin following a protracted dispute over a narrow strip of land.
However, a Supreme Court judge ruled that the Martins had not behaved unreasonably, describing the encroachments as relatively minor and finding Ms Xu was not entitled to recover her legal costs.
Although the boundary dispute has now ended, the neighbours are understood to have fallen out after the case generated substantial legal expenses.
The conflict began in June 2022, when Ms Xu engaged a surveyor to determine the boundary between her property and the Martins’ ahead of constructing a new dividing fence.
The Martins’ garage and carport were about 42 years old and had stood in place for decades before the dispute emerged.
The survey showed that part of the Martins’ carport, together with the garage’s eave and gutter, extended approximately 13 centimetres over Ms Xu’s property.
One carport post also crossed the boundary by only three centimetres.
Jian Min Xu from Sydney took her neighbours to the NSW Supreme Court after discovering their carport extended three centimetres onto her property
A survey found that the carport post crossed the property boundary by about three centimetres
Ms Xu brought the issue to her neighbours’ attention in September 2023 and requested that the offending structures be removed.
Nearly two years later, the work was still unfinished. The delay was blamed in part on conflicting surveys and a tradesperson removing the wrong carport post.
Believing insufficient action had been taken, Ms Xu began legal proceedings in July 2025, seeking orders requiring the remaining encroachments to be removed.
She also pursued damages, including aggravated damages, along with court orders concerning alleged trespass and interference with her property.
A second survey commissioned by Ms Xu identified further encroachments measuring between one and three centimetres.
CHECK THIS OUT: Teen Charged as an Adult Over Alleged Molestation of 12-Year-Old at Age 17
Rather than continue arguing over the differing survey results, the Martins agreed to remove the structures.
By May 2026, all of the identified encroachments had been removed. The legal dispute, however, continued.
The following month, Ms Xu sought $56,649.37 to settle her claim.
NSW Supreme Court Justice Ian Pike found no evidence that her neighbours, Royalston and Meredith Martin, had acted unreasonably
The Martins rejected the demand and instead offered Ms Xu $20,000 to end the proceedings.
Ms Xu rejected the offer.
In a judgment handed down last week, Justice Ian Pike ordered both sides to pay their own legal costs after finding there was no evidence the Martins had acted unreasonably.
‘The alleged encroachments relate to structures which have been in place since 1984,’ he said.
‘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 ability to use or enjoy her property, although they could have interfered with her plans to build a dividing fence.
He also rejected suggestions her neighbours had deliberately dragged their feet over removing the structures.
‘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,’ he said.
Justice Pike acknowledged Ms Xu’s frustration over the delays but found there was no basis for concluding the Martins had abandoned their commitment to remove the encroachments.
Ms Xu told the Daily Mail last week she was disappointed by the decision and was considering an appeal.
The Daily Mail has contacted Royalston and Meredith Martin for comment.