| <H1> Bond Adams Solicitors. Operating Nationwide </H1> |
| <H2> The Firm </H2> |
| <H2> Careers </H2> |
| <H2> Out People </H2> |
| <H2> Services for Individuals </H2> |
| <H2> Services for Business </H2> |
| <H2> Ukrainian Immigration Family Scheme – Guidance and Support. </H2> |
| <H2> Shariah Compliant Islamic Mortgages from UK Banks </H2> |
| <H2> No Fault Divorce – Taking the Blame Out of an Already Painful Process </H2> |
| <H2> Grandparents’ Adoption Rights </H2> |
| <H2> DOES A DECREE ABSOLUTE IN DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS AUTOMATICALLY SEVER A JOINT TENANCY? </H2> |
| <H2> IS THE DIVORCE BLAME GAME OVER? </H2> |
| <H2> Contact Information </H2> |
| <H2> Our People </H2> |
| <H2> Bond Adams London Office </H2> |
| <H2> Our Services </H2> |
| <H2> Services for Individuals </H2> |
| <H2> Services for Business </H2> |
| <H2> Award Winning </H2> |
| <H2> Tailor Made Costs </H2> |
| <H2> No Obligation Meeting </H2> |
| <H2> Act for Individual and Corporate Clients </H2> |
| <H2> Contact us for… </H2> |
| <H2> Key Transactions/ Deal Sheet </H2> |
| <H2> "The Bond Adams Corporate Team, Property Team and Litigation team dealt with a complex £4,200,000 plot purchase on the site of Heathrow Airport, involving the assessment of hotel operating agreements with existing rights, shareholder arrangements, complex property rights along with opting to tax arrangements. The team across 3 departments secured the transaction for our developer client" </H2> |
| <H2> "Acting for the INMIND Healthcare Group through their insurers for a proceedings before a coroners inquest involving 9 different interested parties, over a hearing which lasted 10 working days in London. The case involved taking over a matter with on 8 weeks to go. Analyzing the issues at short notice. " </H2> |
| <H2> "Our Litigation team acted for a business man who owned a property worth £1,100,000. The house caught fire and Direct line argued that misrepresentation had occurred and that the owner had made an overclaim. The matter proceeded by way a claim being made and subsequently despite no offers being made, their Global Head of Claims attended a mediation to offer the above sum which was accepted." </H2> |
| <H2> "The Commercial Property team dealt with a complex purchase of £1,600,000 involving a pension fund and 13 parcels of inter related land. The issues involved rights of access, covenants and contributions on various parcels of land which needed to be considered are part of the overall purchase. " </H2> |
| <H2> "Our Litigation Team dealt with a trade mark dispute between our client and Yoplait the owners of YOP which is sold in Canada, France, Belgium the United Kingdom and a number of other countries. The case centered around the rights to the mark which was suggested by YOP to be a matter of confusion. Our team argued that no confusion arose and the trademark registry found against the owners of YOPLAIT. " </H2> |
| <H2> "Our restructuring and insolvency experts acted for a limited company that had the benefit of 13 pizza hut franchises. As a result of various matters, it was necessary to advise the owner on a pre pack administration, followed by a second transaction involving complex asset purchase and call options. The team crossed into our property team dealing with assignments of leases, corporate aspects involving call options and litigation experts regarding rights and benefits. The work involved cutting across 3 departments demonstrating the complexity involved. " </H2> |
| <H2> Contact Us </H2> |
| <H2> Services for Individuals </H2> |
| <H2> Services for Business </H2> |
| <H3> </H3> |
| <H3> Commercial Litigation </H3> |
| <H3> </H3> |
| <H3> Commercial Property </H3> |
| <H3> "Our family law team dealt with a complex dispute involving a client who was building the matrimonial asset base by way of property and commercial businesses. The case centered around whether the court should depart from the 50-50 equity starting point or whether the court should depart from this. H argued that as he was building the business whilst the children were not minors and that W was living off the assets he was accumulating, the court should depart. W argued that it should not and proceed with the equity base. " </H3> |
| <H3> </H3> |
| <H3> Family Law </H3> |
| <H4> 0116 285 80 80 (Headquarters) </H4> |
| <H4> lawyers@bondadams.com </H4> |
| <H4> Privacy Overview </H4> |