The Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal by Google concerning the service of a claim form outside the jurisdiction. It has also refused a cross-appeal concerning the costs test in relief from sanctions applications.
In Robertson v Google LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1262, the claimant (a YouTuber) brought a discrimination and contract claim against Google concerning, among other things, the termination of his YouTube channel. He attempted to serve his claim out of the jurisdiction without the Court’s permission. However, he failed to file and serve with it the Form N510 (which explains the basis on which the Court’s permission for service is not needed). He then made an application under CPR 6.34 to serve the claim form without the Form N510. He was successful at first instance (with the Court applying a normal relief from sanctions test), but was ordered to pay Google’s costs of the application. Google appealed the application decision. Mr Robertson cross-appealed the costs order.
In the course of the appeal, Mr Robertson also raised a new argument that Google had no standing in the application or in the appeal because the only way for it to object to the application was under CPR 11, which requires a defendant to file an Acknowledgement of Service before it contests the Court’s jurisdiction, which Google had not done.
The Court of Appeal allowed Google’s appeal. It found that the regime for permission to serve a claim form without a Form N510 under CPR 6.34 was prospective. Therefore if an application is made after the deadline for service has passed, then the applicant needs to show that they also meet the conditions of CPR 7.6(3), concerning applications for extensions of time for claim form service made after the deadline has passed. Mr Robertson could not meet that test.
The Court also rejected the new jurisdictional arguments made by Mr Robertson as hopeless. It accepted Google’s case that: (a) there is no obligation on a defendant to file an Acknowledgement of Service prior to effective service of a claim; (b) CPR 11 is not the only way in which a jurisdictional objection can be made by a defendant.
The Court also refused Mr Robertson’s cross-appeal on costs. It held that there is a usual approach that a defaulting party pays the innocent party’s reasonably incurred costs in a relief from sanctions application, even if the innocent party unsuccessfully objects to the application. Whilst the Court of Appeal might not have ordered Google’s full costs, the judge at first instance permissively made his own decision that could not be interfered with on appeal.
Catrin Evans KC and Nathan Roberts represented Google, instructed by Pinsent Masons. Catrin presented Google’s case on the appeal. Nathan presented Google’s case on the new jurisdictional arguments and the cross-appeal.