000			01490cab a2200193 4500
001			ABS38125
008			090401t1987 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u8834
041			_aeng
245			_aElite Investments Ltd v TI Bainbridge Silencers Ltd (No 2)
260			_c1987
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v283(6347) 15 August 1987, 747-748(2)
520			_aChD 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
650			_aBUSINESS TENANCIES
690			_aTAXATION-CASE LAW
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c5473 _d5473