Markets 
A Brisbane homeowner has been ordered to remove his patio area, a cubby house and part of his pool terrace that were built on his neighbour’s land – long before he purchased the property – in a fierce land battle in the city’s leafy west.
Gordon Wilkie purchased a five-bedroom home on Savages Road in the affluent enclave of Brookfield in 2022 for $1.32 million.
He was aware that part of the property’s entertaining area, as well as two water tanks, had been built on land that technically belonged to neighbours Charles and Sara Judd, who purchased their home in 2015.
He negotiated a $25,000 discount on the purchase price and was optimistic he would be able to buy the small slice of land from the Judds and ultimately redraw his property’s boundaries after settlement.
His hopes were misplaced.
The battle between Wilkie and the Judds reached the Supreme Court, with Justice Paul Freeburn noting the dispute “turned ugly” as both parties “adopted rather extreme positions” and police were called on two occasions.
The amount of land in dispute was no more than 141 square metres, estimated by an expert valuer to have an unimproved capital value of $10,500.
However, there are 13 “encroachments” on the land, including a carport, two 10,000 litre water tanks, a sandstone retaining wall, a tiled patio, a “premium or luxury end” wooden cubby house, as well as some of the tiling in the pool terrace area.
The two water tanks provide water to the toilets, pool and external taps of Wilkie’s property, as it is not connected to council wastewater services.
According to an expert builder, the cost of removing the encroachments is likely to be $180,000.
The land was subdivided in January 2000 with a 405-square-metre easement created between the two properties to manage septic waste and stormwater runoff on the sloping blocks.
“There is no clear evidence as to how the encroachments came into existence,” Freeburn said.
The pool, patio area and cubby house were built years before Wilkie and the Judds purchased their respective homes.
“Discussions between Mr Wilkie and Mr Judd post-settlement started well enough … [but] attempts to resolve the issue between November 2022 and April 2023 were unsuccessful,” the judgement reads.
In April 2023, Wilkie offered to purchase the affected land from the Judds, in order to keep his backyard and entertaining area intact, for $15,000.
The proposed deal included redrawing the property boundaries, removing the water tanks and covering any legal costs up to $5000.
The Judds rejected the offer.
In September 2023, Wilkie increased his offer to $25,000. That too was rejected by the Judds.
By May the following year, Wilkie doubled his offer to $50,000. Again, it was rejected.
The neighbours agreed to court-ordered mediation in October that year, but it was to no avail.
Police were called the following February, after Judd started erecting four fence posts on the eastern boundary of his neighbour’s property.
“The behaviour of both men does them no credit,” Freeburn said.
In March 2025, Wilkie made an open offer of $120,000.
“That offer was described by Mr Wilkie’s counsel as favourable to the Judds. The Judds evidently did not see it that way because they did not respond,” Freeburn said.
“It is certainly true that Mr Wilkie was willing to negotiate. He made many offers. But those offers were relatively narrow in scope. The offers all involved a transfer of the disputed areas to himself, with the principal variable being the amount of compensation.
“On the other hand, Mr and Mrs Judd adopted a rather combative and uncommunicative approach to the negotiations. In the correspondence at least, the Judds did not make one offer that could be regarded as a sensible, properly articulated offer …
“But property rights are still property rights.”
The judge said he was not persuaded to interfere with existing property rights and effectively create a “peninsula” on the Judd’s land.
He ordered Wilkie remove the cubby house, some tiling in the pool terrace area, part of a path leading to the pool area and also reconfigure a section of the pool fence.
The two water tanks and the concrete slab on which they sit, as well as two flights of stairs leading from the pool area to the carport, will also need to be removed.
The carport can remain where it is, with Wilkie ordered to pay the Judds $1376 in compensation for the 3.5 square metres of land on which it encroaches their property.
“Mr Wilkie’s application succeeds only in respect of the carport and associate sandstone retaining wall, but … the pool area needs to be re-configured so that it does not encroach onto [the Judd’s property],” Freeburn said.
He quoted his NSW counterpart Justice Francois Kunc, who presided over a 2022 neighbourhood dispute involving an easement.
“Most Australians live in proximity to their neighbours. That proximity will require, from time to time, a degree of give and take, tolerance and common sense to ensure peaceful co-existence. When those qualities are absent, disputes between neighbours can quickly grow out of all proportion. This case is an unfortunate example of that phenomenon.”
Neither Wilkie nor the Judds could be reached for comment.
The judge is due to hear the parties on costs.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.
From our partners
Read the full article here
