Colin Robertson v Google LLC

Colin Robertson v Google LLC

CPR 7.6(3) applies to extension of time for service of claim form out of jurisdiction; relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 cannot be used to bypass the strict requirements of CPR 7.6(3). The court cannot retrospectively validate defective service under CPR 6.34(2)(b). Mr Robertson failed to effect valid service within the statutory period and cannot meet the requirements for extension under CPR 7.6(3), rendering the proceedings a nullity. Google was not obliged to file acknowledgment of service or Part 11 application in response to invalid service. The costs order was within the judge's discretion.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Colin Robertson; Defendant/appellant: Google LLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil 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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Robertson

Claimant/respondent

Google LLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 applies to defective service of claim form out of jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether CPR 7.6(3) governs extension of time for service of claim form
  3. 3 Whether court can retrospectively validate defective service under CPR 6.34(2)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

CPR 7.6(3) applies to extension of time for service of claim form out of jurisdiction; relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 cannot be used to bypass the strict requirements of CPR 7.6(3). The court cannot retrospectively validate defective service under CPR 6.34(2)(b). Mr Robertson failed to effect valid service within the statutory period and cannot meet the requirements for extension under CPR 7.6(3), rendering the proceedings a nullity. Google was not obliged to file acknowledgment 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; court has no jurisdiction to consider the claim further.
  • Costs order against Mr Robertson upheld.