Background
You may have to consult a family lawyer or divorce solicitor when:
- you are about to get married and you are considering a pre-nuptial agreement to protect your family’s assets
- your relationship is at an end and you need to resolve complex and international financial settlement issues, and, above all,
- you need to protect your children’s welfare.
Of course, through all of this you will need to be assured that your privacy is respected and you will want to know that you are receiving the best advice and service.
At Reed Consultancy Firm, we can help you.
Our family law services
As an established and market leading family law firm, we pride at providing the best family and divorce legal advice. We have family law specialists who have extensive experience, and a depth of rising stars.
For us, it is all about providing a very high level of client service. Our clients tell us that they value our ability to communicate complex issues in a pragmatic, innovative and positive way. We provide an all-round, integrated service, covering not just family law but every other service required by individuals involved in a divorce, including tax, private client, contentious trusts and international issues. Our reputation management experts can ensure that your privacy is protected at such a sensitive time.
Our family and divorce legal team
We are a team of diverse and engaging characters who share a sense of empathy and integrity. We maintain a constructive approach in sensitive and difficult situations, and are known to be straightforward, pragmatic and sensible. We will always act in your best interests.
Our expertise in family law
Our team of professional family and divorce solicitors operates at the forefront of family law. We have been involved with a number of ground-breaking cases, which have established the current law. These include the leading Supreme Court case on pre-nuptial agreements, and the leading Court of Appeal decision on piercing the corporate veil.
We act for both domestic and international clients. Many of our cases involve complex cross-border issues, sophisticated asset protection structures and trust and tax issues.
Ms. Gonzalez filed suit against 7-Eleven and Mr. Samra, claiming personal injuries and alleging negligence and premises liability. She claimed that when she fell, she injured both knees—her left knee requiring arthroscopic surgery. She also claimed to have right hip and lower back pain, attributable to the fall, and had not worked since the incident. Initial settlement demand was for $300,000.
Legal Strategy
For 7-Eleven, the issue of potential liability for the acts of its franchisees is extremely important. It was critical, therefore, to extricate 7-Eleven from the suit before the jury could deliberate. To accomplish that, James Wakefield, counsel from Cummins & White, made a “motion for non-suit” (request for dismissal) after opening statements and before evidence was offered. The Court ultimately granted the request and dismissed 7-Eleven before jury deliberations. Once 7-Eleven was successfully removed from the case, Mr. Wakefield focused his efforts in defending the franchisee, Mr. Samra.
Floor at the time the Plaintiff claimed she fell. Mr. Wakefield also pointed out inconsistencies in Ms. Gonzalez’s testimony and that of her friends who testified on her behalf. He established that it was the intent of Ms. Gonzalez and her friends to file suit against 7-Eleven within moments of the “fall.” In addition, floor safety expert Carl Beels tested the floor and concluded that it was not slippery when water was present in the quantity that Ms. Gonzalez testified she observed, particularly for a person wearing tennis shoes (as was Ms. Gonzalez).
Result
What began as a $300,000 claim against high-profile 7-Eleven, Inc., ended soon after trial commenced when the Court accepted Cummins & White’s contention that 7-Eleven, Inc., played no role in Ms. Gonzalez’s accident. A second victory followed at the end of the seven-day trial when the jury returned a verdict in favor of the franchisee, Mr. Samra. In addition, because Ms. Gonzalez refused a “nuisance value” pre-trial settlement offer made by 7-Eleven, the Court awarded a judgment for $32,000 in favor of 7-Eleven for its costs.
“The defense verdict in favor of 7-Eleven and the award of a judgment against the Plaintiff was key for 7-Eleven,” said Mr. Wakefield. “It sends a message that the company will not be an easy target for frivolous suits.”