Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 05 NOVEMBER 2026

The Concept Of ‘Interior Face’: Where Does The Boundary Lie?

A Supreme Court of Victoria decision has overturned a tribunal ruling on apartment balcony ownership, establishing that deteriorated tiles, waterproofing and screed constitute common property rather than private lot ownership. The case clarifies how 'interior face' boundaries should be interpreted in Plans of Subdivision, determining whether owners corporations or individual lot owners bear responsibility for maintenance and repairs in high-density residential developments.

AustraliaReal Estate and Construction

This piece was co-authored by Tanya Pestamalgian, Law Graduate.

Do the floor and walls of an apartment balcony belong to the owner of the lot, or are they common property? Where does liability lie when repairs are needed? With the ever-increasing development of high-density urban dwellings, the recent decision in Damjanovski v Owners Corporation 1 Plan No. PS503570D [2026] VSC 656 (Damjanovski) highlights how uncertainty about lot boundaries can complicate responsibility for building defects and repairs, and emphasises the importance of clear Plans of Subdivision.

Facts

A long-running dispute over a deteriorated apartment balcony causing water ingress and neighbouring property damage recently reached the Supreme Court of Victoria following a decision of VCAT in favour of the Owners Corporation (OC). The OC had successfully argued before VCAT that the deteriorated tiles, waterproofing membrane and screed (balcony components) formed part of the privately owned lot and were therefore

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from