Horbury Building Systems Limited had erected ceilings within in a cinema complex. The ceiling to one of the cinemas collapsed, and the whole complex had been closed for several weeks. Clause 4.1 of the insurance policy said that Hampden Insurance would indemnify Horbury Building Systems “in respect of … damage to the property”. Horbury Building System argued that the loss of profit caused by the closure of the entire cinema complex arose as a consequence of the damage to one of the cinemas. The insurance company did not agree, believing that the damage related only to a single cinema and not the whole complex. The judge agreed with the insurance company, and Horbury Building Systems appealed.

Was the closure of the complete cinema complex as a result of one ceiling collapsing and/or was the closure of the complex consequential damage caused by the collapsed ceiling?