Family law team
Eleanor Marsh is a busy private law children and financial remedies (including TOLATA) barrister who joined 3PB in November 2022 from another well-known chambers in Birmingham, where she had completed her pupillage.
Eleanor is able to develop a strong rapport with clients by being empathetic and approachable; and is routinely described as "diligent", "professional", and "effective" counsel.
Eleanor is renowned as a formidable advocate in court; a skill she has developed since she completed a Stage at the European Court of Justice in the cabinet of Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston, conducting legal research in French. A multiple scholarship and awards-winner, Eleanor represented Lincoln’s Inn at the Imperial Open Debating Competition and was a finalist of the Sir Louis Gluckstein Advocacy Competition, Lincoln’s Inn.
During her university studies, Eleanor was a human rights volunteer with Projects Abroad leading numerous human rights sessions for marginalised communities and schoolchildren, often working with victims of domestic abuse and leading presentations on police corruption and child labour.
Eleanor is appointed as the Lincoln's Inn Circuit Representative for the Midland Circuit, as well as being a Co-opted Bar Representation committee member, representing the Hall on the Post-Call Education Committee.
When Eleanor isn't busy working, she enjoys playing the cello, piano or euphonium alongside her husband and two-year-old, who enjoys playing the tambourine beside them!
Eleanor Marsh is an expert private law children and family finance barrister.
Private Law Children
Eleanor is regularly instructed on behalf of both parents and children (through their rule 16.4 Guardian) within private law proceedings on the full spectrum of hearings; from first hearings to fact-finding hearings, final contested hearings and appeals.
She prides herself on working closely with instructing solicitors for the lay client’s benefit, and always strive to achieve continuity of counsel throughout proceedings.
Eleanor regularly deals with matters involving serious allegations of domestic abuse, emotional and physical abuse of a child, and parental alienation; often requiring lengthy and complex fact-finds. For instance, she appeared in the High Court on behalf of a parent, where a party was appealing a Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order made by a Circuit Judge, following a 5-day fact-finding hearing.
In summary, Eleanor has been instructed to act in connection with, but not limited to, the following applications:
Eleanor regularly represents clients seeking non-molestation orders and/or occupation orders, or opposing the same.
Recent cases include:
Griffiths v Griffiths – represented the child via their 16.4 Guardian at the permission to appeal hearing in relation to the mother’s appeal against an order for her to pay an equal share of the cost of the father’s contact centre contact despite significant findings of domestic abuse.
B v B – represented a parent in protracted proceedings involving allegations of sexual abuse against a child.
B v A – lengthy private law proceedings where the court changed the child’s residence as result of clear findings of parental alienation. There was extensive involvement from NYAS, and the child had Autism and significant health needs.
X v H – protracted private law proceedings involving a 16.4 Guardian including a lengthy fact-find hearing and the making of a Female Genital Mutilation Protection Order.
M v G – private law proceedings involving allegations of abuse against the children and their primary carer. Final orders made for indirect contact only.
S v W – private law proceedings in which the child had been retained following contact due to safeguarding concerns surrounding alcohol misuse of the other parent.
F v L – private law proceedings involving a 16.4 Guardian where delays in listing the final hearing had created a new status quo for the child.
Family Finance
Eleanor has a busy family finance practice, again appearing in the full spectrum of hearings, appearing on behalf of husbands, wives, and interveners in matrimonial finance cases. She has been instructed on cases involving valuable business assets and overseas properties as well as matters which have involved “add back” arguments and conduct allegations.
She is regularly representing clients at the full spectrum of hearings, these have included (but are not limited to):
She has been praised by solicitors for facilitating settlement at FDR when the client has been seemingly intractable; and regularly provides written advice on settlement. She is also known for her empathetic but clear advice; and regularly negotiates fair settlements for her clients, even where there are limited matrimonial assets to be divided.
Eleanor also enjoys advising on and appearing in TOLATA matters, both in Court and via written opinion. This has included appearing on behalf of a party on appeal following contested proceedings to determine the beneficial ownership of the former family home.
Recent cases include:
S v S – represented the respondent in proceedings involving a number of significant factual issues, including: the beneficial ownership of three separate properties, the length of the parties’ cohabitation, contributions arguments in relation to the purchase and running of the FMH, the veracity of significant liabilities, disputed business interests, and allegations of material non-disclosure.
B v S - represented the applicant in proceedings where an intervener asserted that they were the sole beneficial owner of the former family home.
B v B – represented the applicant in proceedings involving a family home within the jurisdiction and six other properties situated in India where family members had declined to intervene but brought separate court proceedings within India. As well as jurisdictional issues, there were also issues with disclosure and compliance with court orders, resulting in a significant “add back” argument being raised and litigation conduct.
D v D – represented the respondent in proceedings involving significant matrimonial assets, including a very successful and valuable business where the wife was seeking the transfer of one of the commercial premises to her sole name.
H v H – represented the respondent husband in proceedings where reckless / wanton expenditure had been accepted, but not to the extend sought by the applicant wife.
K v N – represented the wife on appeal in relation to the beneficial ownership of the FMH following a trial of preliminary issue hearing.
Year of call: 2016
