Nathalie Bull joined 3PB in February 2019 and is a barrister who practices exclusively in family law.
Before joining 3PB Nathalie practiced as a barrister for 12 years at another Midlands based chambers. Prior to that, she worked in a large Solicitors firm as an Advocate. She is regularly instructed in private children proceedings, care proceedings, matrimonial finance and contested divorce/annulment proceedings. Nathalie has acted for parents, grandparents, children and local authorities.
Regardless of whether the case is child or finance related, Nathalie steers each case in a progressive manner with a view to concluding the proceedings efficiently at the earliest stage. She prides herself on her high record of agreed settlements between the parties in her cases.
Nathalie is an accomplished negotiator and advocate and she communicates effectively with her opponents and the judiciary to achieve the desired result. Nathalie has an eye for detail, she thoroughly prepares her cases and she strives to achieve the best possible result for her clients.
In her spare time Nathalie enjoys keeping fit by taking part in 10k mud runs and 5k inflatable runs, in addition to riding her horse. She loves spending time with her two children aged 7 and 5. She enjoys attending F1 motorsport events with her husband.
Private Law Children, Injunction and Domestic Abuse
Nathalie is instructed in cases involving child arrangement orders, parental responsibility, prohibited steps and specific issues. Many of Nathalie’s cases involve allegations of domestic abuse, emotional, physical, sexual and financial abuse. Nathalie has a particular interest in complex cases of parental alienation and intractable contact disputes where the child may have suffered psychological harm as a result of the high conflict.
Nathalie appears regularly in FHDRAs, DRAs, review hearings, direction hearings, fact-finding hearings, final hearings and enforcement hearings.
Nathalie is instructed by both applicants and respondents in applications for non-molestation injunctions, occupation orders and committal proceedings.
L v L (2018): parental alienation (represented the father) – the mother refused any form of contact despite a child arrangement order being in place. A Guardian was appointed to consider a change of residence. Enforcement proceedings were brought which the mother failed to engage in. A committal order was made against the mother, suspended on the condition that she engages in the proceedings and with all orders. The mother only then complied with the child arrangement order. A cost order was made against the mother.
S v S (2018): private law (represented the mother) - following her diagnosis of cancer and the breakdown of her marriage, the mother resorted to alcoholism, which led to her children being removed from her care and her contact being limited to supervised. After some time, the mother’s physical and mental health improved and she was able to evidence her sustained abstinence from alcohol through alcohol tests and the fitting of a SCRAM bracelet. The case resulted in an agreed order of shared care, in accordance with the wishes of the children and the mother.
H v S, H (2017): private law (represented the paternal grandmother) - the grandmother applied for a child arrangement order in order to spend time with her granddaughter. As a result of suffering from mental health difficulties, the father was unable to spend time with his daughter. The grandmother’s application was successful.
P v C (2017): parental alienation (represented the father) – the mother refused any form of contact and alleged serious sexual abuse perpetrated by the father against the toddler. At the fact finding hearing the mother was found to have concocted the allegations in an attempt to cut the father out of the child’s life. A Guardian was instructed to consider a change of residence. Contact recommenced, the mother engaged with and complied with the child arrangement order.
C v N (2017): private law (represented the mother). At a fact finding hearing the Court found that the father had deliberately started a fire in his bedroom with the intention of killing himself and his two children. The Court made a ‘barring order’ under s.91(14) Children Act 1989 to prevent the father from making applications under s.8 of the Children Act 1989 for a term of 7 years, together with a non-molestation injunction for a term of 7 years.
S v S (2011): parental alienation (represented the father) – the mother was incapable of positively promoting contact between the children and their father. A Guardian was instructed and recommended a change of residence. The children were ordered to live with their father.
Care and Adoption
Nathalie is instructed by parents, grandparents, children and local authorities in public law proceedings, including care orders, special guardianship orders and adoption orders. She has experience in cases involving neglect, physical and sexual abuse of children.
Nathalie has experience in representing vulnerable clients and she is particularly sensitive to the needs of such clients.
Re R (2018): adoption (represented the adopters) - the mother opposed the adoption application and in the alternative applied for post-adoption contact relying upon the recent speech by Lord Justice McFarlane in promoting post adoption contact. This case involved a noteworthy legal argument concerning the need of an application under s51A when the mother was already a party to the proceedings and therefore s.46(6) provided the mother with the entitlement to propose contact arrangements, which the court must consider. The mother’s application under s.51A was dismissed on the basis that it was unnecessary.
Re H (2018): care proceedings (represented the mother) - the mother had learning difficulties and she required an Advocate to assist her at court. The vulnerable mother had been in relationships with violent men and sexual offenders and she was unable to recognise risks in order to keep herself and her children safe. Towards the latter stage of the proceedings the mother started to engage with the local authority and attend courses in order to learn the necessary skills to recognise risks. Unfortunately the mother’s engagement had started too late and she had not been able to demonstrate a sustained change, which sadly resulted in a Care Order being made.
Nathalie accepts instructions in finance proceedings, from FDAs and FDRs through to final hearings.
Nathalie’s strong negotiation skills result in the vast majority of her cases settling with Consent Orders, which often results in her clients avoiding significant legal costs.
R v T (2019): divorce (represented the husband) - the parties had a civil ceremony with the intention of having a religious ceremony two months later. They had planned to consummate their marriage after their religious ceremony. Unfortunate the parties separated before the religious ceremony had taken place. As the marriage had not been consummated the husband applied to annul the marriage under s.12 Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 on the basis of ‘wilful refusal’. The factually similar case authority of A v J (Nullity Proceedings)  1 FLR 110 was referenced. The wife consented to the husband’s application, however the husband was unable to bring himself to apply for Decree Nisi in order to bring the marriage to an end. The husband applied for the dismissal of his nullity application, the wife opposed this application. The Court allowed the husband’s application on the basis that the husband could not be forced to apply for Decree Nisi.
B v B (2019): financial proceedings (represented the wife) - the complexities concerned calculating a teacher’s final salary pension, the instruction of an pension actuary was required before settlement could be reached.
D v D (2019): financial proceedings (represented the wife) - short marriage without properties or children, settled at FDA, the arguments concerned the possession of valuable wedding jewellery and other gifted items including a brand new Mercedes.
P v P (2018): financial proceedings (represented the husband) - this case involved successful multiple-site estate agency businesses and a large number of properties within and outside the UK. Settlement was agreed between the husband and wife over the ownership of the properties.
L v L (2018): financial proceedings (represented the husband) - long marriage, settled at FDR, larger lump sum agreed in lieu of a pension share.
S v O (2018): financial proceedings (represented the wife) - concerned multiple investment properties and parcels of land. The complexities included the husband’s failure to engage in the proceedings, impending possession proceedings and conduct arguments.
- (2004) Inner Temple
- LLB (HONS) First Class, UWE (Bristol)
- BVC Very Competent, UWE (Bristol)
- (2003) Awarded a Major Exhibition by the Inner Temple on the basis of academic achievement
- (2003) Awarded the Duke of Edinburgh Entrance Scholarship by the Inner Temple
- Family Law Bar Association
Nathalie Bull is qualified to accept instructions directly from members of the public and professional clients under the Direct Public Access scheme.More Information