ChD 23 January 1987. The plaintiffs in the previous action Elite Investments Ltd v T.I. Bainbridge (See Abstract 37099) now sought to establish that the 84,364 awarded in that action as damages against tenants, based on the cost of repairing a roof , should bear added VAT at 15% in order to compensate them fully. The plaintiffs who were in the position of landlords argued that the damages awarded were for breach by the tenants of their obligations and if the landlords carried out the repairs they would have to pay the tax and as they were not registered, they would unable to recover it from Customs and Excise. Drummond v S&U Stores was cited in support of this submission. The Drummond case however, indicated that it was necessary to look at the evidence as a whole and consider what options were open to the landlord to reclaim tax. After some consideration of the options approved by the judge in the Drummond case, the ChD came to the conclusion that in the present case, unlike the Dru