Lane Cove North Boundary Dispute Ends With Neighbours Bearing Their Own Legal Costs

The Lane Cove North dispute ended with the property boundary restored, but the Supreme Court costs ruling turned on how the neighbours handled the process. Justice Ian Pike found the Martins had not acted unreasonably over structures that crossed the boundary by centimetres, so each side had to cover its own legal costs.

Jian Min Xu had sought $56,649.37 after taking Royalston and Meredith Martin to court. The couple had offered $20,000 to settle; Xu declined. The underlying claim was later resolved on undisclosed terms, leaving the costs question for the court. In a judgment delivered October 22, Justice Pike declined to order the Martins to pay Xu’s legal bills.

Surveying a boundary dispute

The disagreement began in June 2022, when Xu commissioned a survey while planning a dividing fence. It found parts of the Martins’ garage and carport over the boundary. Those structures had stood since 1984 and included a garage eave and gutter, a carport gutter, and a carport post.

Xu formally asked for the structures to be removed in September 2023. The Martins obtained their own survey and said it showed no encroachment. The matter then went through a boundary determination.

In February 2025, the Registrar-General identified encroachments of about 13 centimetres at the garage eave and gutter, 13 centimetres at the carport gutter, and three centimetres at the carport post. The Martins accepted the determination and did not contest that the structures should be removed.

Xu gave them 14 days to act in a March 2025 letter. Mr Martin replied that he was overseas and that work would be arranged on his return. A plumber removed the carport gutter and downpipe in early April. The remaining work required roofing repairs and advice from a licensed builder.

Emails before the court showed Mr Martin telling Xu that the work had been identified, scoped and booked. “We feel we are doing everything possible to address the issues,” he wrote.

A survey found the carport post encroached onto her property by about three centimetres

---

Removal did not end the court case

Xu remained unconvinced by the pace of the work and began Supreme Court proceedings in July 2025, seeking removal of the remaining structures and damages for alleged trespass and interference with her land. A later survey identified further encroachments of between one and three centimetres; the Martins agreed to remove those as well.

By May 2026, all identified encroachments had been removed. The parties still had to resolve Xu’s claim, however. She sought $56,649.37 the following month, while the Martins offered $20,000 to settle the proceedings. Xu rejected the offer. The substantive dispute was subsequently settled on terms that were not disclosed.

Jian Min Xu from Sydney took her neighbours to the NSW Supreme Court after discovering their carport encroached onto her land. Source: LinkedIn

---

Why the court made no costs order

Justice Pike said the boundary’s location had been genuinely disputed before the Registrar-General’s determination. He also stressed that the encroachments were minor and involved structures that had been in place for decades.

The judge accepted that the structures may have affected Xu’s plans for a dividing fence, but found no serious impact on her use or enjoyment of the property. Nor did he find that the Martins had delayed in a way that suggested they would refuse to do the work.

“At no stage did the defendants indicate that they would not remove the encroachments,” Justice Pike said. He found the time taken did not amount to an implicit refusal. The Martins, he said, had not “capitulated or surrendered” because they had never taken a firm position against removal; they had followed through on their stated intention to complete it as soon as possible.

For property owners, the case shows how a measured response to a boundary finding can shape a later costs decision. Here, the physical encroachments were removed, but the court saw no basis to make either side pay the other’s legal expenses.