Robertson v Google LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1262 (07 October 2025)

Robertson v Google LLC [2025] EWCA Civ 1262 (07 October 2025)

CPR r.7.6(3) applies to applications for extension of time to serve a claim form outside the jurisdiction; relief from sanctions under CPR r.3.9 cannot be used to bypass the strict requirements of r.7.6(3). Defective service cannot be retrospectively validated under CPR r.6.34(2)(b). Google was not obliged to file an Acknowledgement of Service or Part 11 application in response to invalid service. The costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1262
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Colin Robertson; Defendant/appellant: Google LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Google's appeal allowed; Mr Robertson's cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Service of Claim Form, Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Jurisdiction, Costs
Civil Procedure Contract Law Equality Law Service of Claim Form Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Jurisdiction Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Robertson

Claimant/respondent

Google LLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR r.7.6(3) or r.3.9 governs relief for late service of claim form outside jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether court can retrospectively validate defective service under CPR r.6.34(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether Google was obliged to file an Acknowledgement of Service or Part 11 application to challenge jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

CPR r.7.6(3) applies to applications for extension of time to serve a claim form outside the jurisdiction; relief from sanctions under CPR r.3.9 cannot be used to bypass the strict requirements of r.7.6(3). Defective service cannot be retrospectively validated under CPR r.6.34(2)(b). Google was not obliged to file an Acknowledgement of Service or Part 11 application in response to invalid service. The costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Court Disposition

Google's appeal allowed; Mr Robertson's cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Proceedings are a nullity due to invalid service; no extension of time granted under CPR r.7.6(3).
  • Costs order against Mr Robertson upheld.