×
Entertainment

Judge's crushing blow to woman who dragged neighbours to the Supreme Court over 3cm of land and rejected a $20k peace offering - and they don't want to speak to her anymore

Judge's crushing blow to woman who dragged neighbours to the Supreme Court over 3cm of land and rejected a $20k peace offering - and they don't want to speak to her anymore

A Sydney woman who took her neighbours to the Supreme Court over a carport encroaching just three centimetres onto her property has walked away empty-handed after rejecting a $20,000 offer to settle the bitter dispute. 

Jian Min Xu, a nurse from Sydney's affluent Lower North Shore, demanded $56,649 from her neighbours after a years-long battle over a tiny strip of land escalated into an extraordinary legal showdown. 

But a Supreme Court judge has found her neighbours had not acted unreasonably, that their encroachments were relatively minor and that Ms Xu is not entitled to recover her legal costs. 

And while the battle over the property boundary is finally over, the neighbours are understood to no longer be on speaking terms after racking up huge legal bills.

The dispute began in June 2022 when Ms Xu hired a surveyor to establish the boundary between her property and that of her neighbours, Royalston and Meredith Martin, ahead of building a new dividing fence.

The garage and carport were approximately 42 years old and had been in place for decades before the dispute erupted. 

The survey revealed the Martins' carport, along with the eave and gutter of their garage, extended about 13 centimetres above her land.

A carport post also crossed the boundary by just three centimetres.

Jian Min Xu from Sydney took her neighbours to the NSW Supreme Court after discovering their carport encroached by three centimetres onto her land

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

Ms Xu raised the issue with her neighbours in September 2023 and asked for the offending structures to be removed. 

However, almost two years later, the work had not been completed, with conflicting surveys and a tradie taking out the wrong carport post, contributing to the delay.

Frustrated by the perceived lack of action, Ms Xu launched legal proceedings in July 2025 and asked for a court to order the removal of the remaining encroachments. 

She also sought damages, including aggravated damages, and court orders relating to alleged trespass and interference with her land.

A further survey commissioned by Ms Xu identified additional encroachments of between one and three centimetres.

Rather than fight over the conflicting survey findings, the Martins agreed to remove the structures. 

By May 2026, every identified encroachment had been removed. But the legal battle was far from over.

The following month, Ms Xu demanded $56,649.37 to settle her claim.

NSW Supreme Court Justice Ian Pike found there was no evidence of unreasonable conduct from her neighbours - Royalston and Meredith Martin

Her neighbours refused, instead offering her $20,000 to bring the proceedings to an end.

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.

§

Poundland could disappear from the High Street within days as Andy Burnham asks questions over how its owners handled a sales process.

Thousands of nervous staff are waiting to hear what will happen to the discount retailer after it filed a notice to appoint administrators with the High Court today. 

This will give the business, bought by US investment firm Gordon Brothers for less than £1 last year, some breathing room – ten days – to find a rescue deal. AlixPartners is poised to take over a potential insolvency process.

But the Poundland brand and its 600 shops will not be sold as a whole, leading to a carve-up of the 36-year old retailer, meaning jobs are at risk at any shops that are not bought. 

And on Thursday night, the Prime Minister said he is ready to demand answers from owners amid a 'deeply worrying time' for staff and their families. 

Burnham told The Telegraph: 'We want to see jobs protected. If there was a potential owner to avoid this that hasn’t been accepted, then the Business Secretary and I want to know why that is the case.'

Battle for survival: The fate of Poundland's near 12,000 staff hangs in the balance.

It would mark the biggest high street collapse since Debenhams closed its doors in 2021 with the loss of 12,000 jobs. 

Job losses could hit 600 shops and a distribution centre in Makerfield, Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s constituency, which employs around 270 people.

Business secretary Jonathan Reynolds also said he was ‘very much concerned’ and would push for answers as workers and bosses seethe over its failure to find a buyer.

He told The Telegraph: ‘If it is true that it was not necessary to put the business into administration then the present owners will have to account for that.’

Why has Poundland struggled? 

Chains like Poundland are battling shoppers with constrained budgets while costs, such as employing people, have increased – following Government moves to hike wages and employer National Insurance contributions. Savvier shoppers are looking for cheaper online alternatives, including Amazon, Temu and TikTok Shop.

Former owners, the Warsaw-listed Pepco Group, made some wrong moves that did not go down well with its customers, including putting Pepco clothing in its shops.

Its most recent woes stem back to last year, when it narrowly avoided collapsing into administration. The chain was sold in June 2025 to US firm Gordon Brothers for a nominal €1 amid 'challenging trading conditions'.

By November 2025, around 100 Poundland shops had been shut or earmarked for closure. Two months later, as part of its radical turnaround plan, Poundland had shut 149 stores with 2,200 job losses.

But this year, Poundland bosses insisted it was turning a corner, pointing to like-for-like sales growth of 3.3 per cent in the three months to September 26.

Poundland's managing director Barry Williams said earlier this month: 'Our recovery plan is working, thanks to our investment in simple low pricing and new ranges, powered by our new in-house teams.'

Why is there a dispute between Poundland’s owners and its bosses?

Both shop workers’ union Usdaw and Poundland’s management have accused Gordon Brothers of mishandling a sales process, which it kicked off at the beginning of September.

The union met with the minister for the future of work, Kate Dearden, on Wednesday, amid warnings of what would be the biggest High Street collapse in years.

Three directors, appointed less than a fortnight ago, this week walked out following a dramatic dispute with owners Gordon Brothers.

Hours later the retailer’s management hit out at the owners, calling the process ‘unexpected, unwanted and avoidable’.

Government adviser David Bickerton is set to ask ‘fairly basic questions of senior people around Poundland’ in order to ‘establish what the situation is,’ on behalf of the business secretary, the Financial Times reported.

What does a notice to appoint administrators mean?  

‘Filing a notice of intention isn’t administration itself,’ explains Julie Palmer, managing partner at real estate advisory group BTG.

Instead, it effectively keeps the wolves from the door for up to ten business days of protection and helps the firm preserve cash.

She added: ‘If an appointment follows, the administrators take control of the company from the directors. Their first duty is to try to rescue it as a going concern. 

'If that isn’t possible, they aim for a better result for creditors than liquidation would give. In practice that usually means a sale, either of the whole business or in parts. For staff and customers, stores normally keep trading while that happens, but the risk is that the business is broken up, with stronger stores sold and weaker ones closed.’

Who could buy the shops?

Owner Gordon Brothers rejected a takeover offer from Irish real estate firm Martin Property Group – despite management and unions arguing this was the best deal on the table.

This would have been for the whole business, including its brand and full store estate.

But now it seems like other major retailers, especially those with grand expansion plans, could pick up some shops from Poundland.

The owner of The Range, Homebase and Wilko – known as Britain’s ‘Del Boy Billionaire’ – is thought to be interested. Chris Dawson, 74, who runs CDS Superstores, acquired the Wilko brand out of administration in 2023.

Dawson got his nickname, the 'Del Boy billionaire', via the press as a reference to his yellow Lamborghini Urus, which has a personalised number plate 'DE11 BOY', a homage to the character Del Boy Trotter from the classic TV show Only Fools and Horses.

Dawson started his career as a market trader, before founding The Range and scaling it to a major high street chain. He has since acquired Wilko and Homebase out of administration.

Chris Dawson, 74, runs CDS Superstores, which owns The Range, Homebase and Wilko

Poundstretcher owner Fortress is also understood to be looking at buying shops. The rival discount retailer runs more than 300 shops in the UK.

Supermarket Lidl also hopes to be able to snap up some of its stores if the retailer fails to sell the whole company. The discounter is pushing ahead with a major expansion mission.

TG Jones owner is also understood to be interested in buying parts of the Poundland business.

The private equity group owns Britain's WH Smith shops, now known as TG Jones stores and previously bought ailing accessories chain Claire's, Hobbycraft and The Original Factory Shop.

All Claire's standalone shops in the UK and Ireland stopped trading earlier this year after its financial woes saw it fall into administration twice in a year.

Are shops open and will staff be paid?

Poundland shops are currently open and operating business as usual.

But Poundland's managing director Barry Williams wrote a letter to around 12,000, accusing the retailer’s owner of limiting the chain's access to funding.

This has effectively prevented bosses from making routine payments, with suppliers now worried they will not be paid on time this week, according to Sky News.

But sources close to the crisis talks insisted that this should not prevent staff from being paid at the end of the month.

Williams told staff: 'I'm disappointed to have to tell you that Gordon Brothers have given instructions that restricts our access to funds that we would, in normal circumstances expect to access fully under our existing loan agreement.'

Gordon Brothers are accused of breaching the terms of an asset-based lending facility by failing to submit a budget to the shareholders on time despite an agreed grace period – with the business now outperforming those forecasts, Sky News reported.

Julie Palmer, managing partner at real estate advisory group BTG, says that in this situation, ‘existing commitments such as payroll and supplier invoices can still be met from cash already available‘.

But bosses cannot ‘draw further funds to cover anything beyond that,’ she says, which poses a problem as retailers typically draw from these loans in the autumn to buy Christmas stock - before repaying from festive sales in December and January.

She added: ‘If a lender has concerns about longer-term viability, it may simply be unwilling to increase its exposure by funding that stock build, particularly when it can’t be sure who will own the business, or what shape it will be in, by the time the money needs to come back.

‘That leaves management with very little room to manoeuvre. It limits their ability to buy stock or take on new commitments, and puts directors in a difficult position, because they must be confident the company can meet its liabilities before taking on new ones. Once credit insurers pull back and suppliers start asking for payment up front, the squeeze tightens quickly.’

Web hosting by Somee.com