Judge Rejects Woman's Supreme Court Claim Over 3cm Land Encroachment, Denies Legal Costs

A Sydney woman's protracted legal dispute with her neighbors over a carport encroaching approximately three centimeters onto her property has concluded with a Supreme Court judge denying her claim and ordering both parties to bear their own legal costs. The woman, identified as Jian Min Xu, a nurse, had demanded over $56,000 from her neighbors, Royalston and Meredith Martin, and rejected a settlement offer of $20,000.

The dispute originated in June 2022 when Ms. Xu commissioned a surveyor to determine the property boundary in preparation for building a new fence. The survey revealed that the Martins' carport and garage eave extended about 13 centimeters over her land, with a carport post crossing the boundary by approximately three centimeters. These structures had been in place for approximately 42 years, having been erected in 1984.

Ms. Xu brought the encroachment issue to her neighbors' attention in September 2023, requesting the removal of the offending structures. The process of removal was delayed by conflicting surveys and an error involving the incorrect removal of a carport post. This perceived lack of prompt action led Ms. Xu to initiate legal proceedings in July 2025, seeking a court order for the removal of the encroachments, damages, and remedies for alleged trespass and interference with her land. A subsequent survey commissioned by Ms. Xu identified further encroachments ranging from one to three centimeters.

By May 2026, all identified encroachments had been removed. Despite this, Ms. Xu proceeded with her claim, demanding $56,649.37 for settlement. The Martins countered with an offer of $20,000, which Ms. Xu declined.

In a judgment delivered recently, Supreme Court Justice Ian Pike found that the Martins had not acted unreasonably. He noted that the encroachments were of a "relevantly minor nature" and had been in place for decades. While acknowledging that the structures could have interfered with Ms. Xu's plans to build a dividing fence, the judge determined they had not significantly affected her ability to use or enjoy her property. Justice Pike also dismissed Ms. Xu's assertions that the Martins had intentionally delayed the removal process, stating that there was no indication they refused to comply with the work. He concluded that the time taken did not imply an abandonment of their commitment to resolve the issue.

Ms. Xu expressed disappointment with the ruling and indicated she was considering an appeal. Representatives for the Martins have been contacted for comment. The protracted legal battle has reportedly led to the breakdown of communication between the neighbors.