Robertson v Google: Court of Appeal clarifies service rules abroad

The Court of Appeal's recent decision in Robertson v Google LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1262 provides important clarification on the procedural requirements for serving claims abroad and the limited scope for retrospective validation of defective service.

Background to the dispute

Colin Robertson brought claims against Google LLC under the Equality Act 2010 and for breach of contract following the termination of his YouTube channel. The claim form, issued on 7 October 2021, required service in the USA within six months.

Robertson delivered the claim form to Google's headquarters on 5 April 2022, narrowly within the time limit. However, he failed to file or serve the mandatory Form N510—the notice required under CPR 6.34(1) when serving abroad without permission. This notice, containing the claimant's statement of grounds for serving out of the jurisdiction, is fundamental to establishing the court's jurisdiction.

Google identified this omission on 19 April 2022. Robertson subsequently filed Form N510 on 22 April 2022 and applied for relief from sanctions.

The procedural framework

The central issue concerned which CPR rules governed the court's consideration of Robertson's predicament. Deputy District Judge Grout granted relief under CPR 3.9 (the general relief from sanctions provision), deeming service to have occurred on 5 April 2022.

Google appealed, arguing that CPR 7.6(3) was the applicable rule. That provision sets stringent conditions for extending time for service after the deadline has passed, requiring either that the court failed to serve the claim form or that the claimant took all reasonable steps to comply but was unable to do so. Robertson accepted he could not meet these requirements.

The Court of Appeal's analysis

Lord Justice Coulson, giving the lead judgement, identified several fundamental problems with the approach taken at first instance.

First, CPR 6.34(2)(b) does not permit retrospective validation of invalid service. The rule states that where Form N510 is not filed, the claim form "may only be served" once the notice is filed or if the court gives permission. This language is prospective, requiring permission before valid service can be effected—unlike CPR 6.15(2), which expressly allows the court to validate steps already taken.

Second, allowing retrospective permission under CPR 6.34(2)(b) would render CPR 7.6(3) redundant. If claimants could bypass the strict extension regime simply by obtaining general relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9, the careful balance struck by the specific service rules would be undermined.

Third, established authority confirms that general provisions cannot override specific rules. In Vinos v Marks & Spencer plc and Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd v Mastercard Inc, the Court of Appeal held that CPR 3.9 and 3.10 cannot be used to circumvent the requirements of CPR 7.6(3).

The Court also drew on R (Good Law Project Ltd) v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWCA Civ 355, which emphasised that the relief from sanctions regime does not apply to service of claim forms. Service performs a special function: it is the act by which the defendant is subjected to the court's jurisdiction.

Robertson's attempt to characterise the relief sought as "dispensing with" Form N510 or "suspending" invalid service was rejected. Form N510 is mandatory—the use of "must" in CPR 6.34(1) makes this clear. Its importance, confirmed in The Wadi Sudr [2009] EWHC 196 (Comm), stems from its role in providing the jurisdictional foundation for service abroad.

The appeal was allowed, with the Court finding that valid service had not been effected within the six-month period and no extension could be granted under CPR 7.6(3). The cross-appeal on costs was dismissed, the costs order falling within the judge's wide discretion despite the unsuccessful jurisdictional challenge by Google.