Colin Robertson v Google LLC

Hearing dates: 23 & 24 July 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 7 October 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

Introduction

The respondent (“Mr Robertson”) failed to effect valid service of his claim form on the appellant (“Google”) in the USA within the applicable period of 6 months. The issue before Deputy District Judge Grout, as he then was (“the judge”), was the identity of the rule or series of rules within the CPR which governed the court's consideration of whether or not to provide Mr Robertson with a way out of his difficulties. But for the authorities, it is apparent that the judge considered that the relevant rule was r.7.6(3) (extending time for service of a claim form), and that Mr Robertson could not bring himself within that rule. But the judge was persuaded that the authorities indicated that r.7.6(3) did not apply in these circumstances, and that the relevant test was the broader test for relief from sanctions under r.3.9, which the judge then granted. The primary issue raised by Google's appeal is whether he was right to take that course.

There is a cross-appeal, raised on behalf of Mr Robertson, arising out of the costs order made by the judge. The judge granted Mr Robertson relief from sanctions and, in accordance with the usual approach, ordered him to pay the costs of that application. He seeks to appeal that costs order on the basis that some, perhaps a significant amount, of the costs arose in relation to a separate challenge by Google to the court's jurisdiction to hear some of the claims, a challenge which they ultimately lost. On his behalf, Mr Boch submitted that there was no causal connection between that jurisdiction issue and the debate about service and relief from sanctions, and that that should have been reflected in the judge's costs order.

The Factual Background

Mr Robertson had a contract with Google LLC (“Google”), a company based in the USA, pursuant to which he provided YouTube videos. That contract was terminated on 22 February 2021 in consequence of Google's “hate speech” policies.

Mr Robertson issued a claim form against Google on 7 October 2021. This asserted claims that Google “demonetised” and “shadow banned” Mr Robertson's channel prior to its termination. He alleged that those actions, and the termination itself, amounted to unlawful discrimination on account of his philosophical beliefs or race, contrary to s.29 of the Equality Act 2010. In the alternative, Mr Robertson alleged that the termination was a breach of contract. The claim form had to be served on Google in the USA within 6 months, namely by 7 April 2022.

Mr Robertson did not act promptly. It was not until 5 April 2022 that the claim form was delivered to Google's headquarters. However, the mandatory form N510 (explained in greater detail below) was not filed with the court or provided with the claim form. On 19 April 2022, Google pointed out that omission and said that, in consequence, proper service had not been effected. As a result of the letter from Google, Mr Robertson filed the N510 with the court on 22 April 2022 together with an application for relief from sanctions.

In this way, valid service of the claim form had not taken place within the statutory 6 months. Unless a subsequent order rectifying that position was made in Mr Robertson's favour, that was likely to mean that some of his claims, including the claim under the Equality Act, were statute-barred 1. But it would appear that other claims, based on the same or similar facts and matters, could be made even now in fresh proceedings, and still be within time. For example, the ordinary limitation period for claims for breach of contract is 6 years from the date of the alleged breach, so such claims may not expire in this case until 22 February 2027. In this way, the ultimate purpose of the procedural jousting at the heart of this appeal remains a little opaque.

The Relevant Parts of the CPR

Before coming to the application that Mr Robertson made for relief from sanctions, and the judge's judgment on that application, it is appropriate to set out the relevant rules of the CPR and some of the associated case law.

CPR Part 6 is concerned with service. Although it does not arise directly in the present case, r.6.15 is a regular topic for debates about service, concerned as it is with methods or places or service not otherwise permitted by Part 6. Rule 6.15(2) provides expressly that:

“(2) On an application under this rule, the court may order that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method or at an alternative place is good service.”

Rule 6.33 is concerned with service of a claim form out of the jurisdiction where the permission of the court is not required. It was Mr Robertson's case that permission was not required because his contract with Google contained a relevant UK jurisdiction clause. Rule 6.33(2B) provides:

“(2B) The claimant may serve the claim form on a defendant outside the United Kingdom where, for each claim made against the defendant to be served and included in the claim form—(a)…

(b) a contract contains a term to the effect that the court shall have jurisdiction to determine that claim; or

(c) the claim is in respect of a contract falling within sub-paragraph (b)…”

Rule 6.34 is directly relevant to service under r.6.33. It provides:

“(1) Where the claimant intends to serve a claim form on a defendant under rule 6. 32 or 6.33, the claimant must –

(a) file with the claim form a notice containing a statement of the grounds on which the claimant is entitled to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction; and

(b) serve a copy of that notice with the claim form.

(2) Where the claimant fails to file with the claim form a copy of the notice referred to in paragraph (1)(a), the claim form may only be served –

(a) once the claimant files the notice; or

(b) if the court gives permission.”

The relevant form that comprises this notice is Form N510. It is an important document because it provides the basis for a claimant's assertion that the UK courts have jurisdiction. In National Navigation Co v Endesa Generacion SA (The Wadi Sudr) [2009] EWHC 196 (Comm) at [72(vi)] Gloster J said about the forerunner to Form N510:

“It is very important…that solicitors issuing proceedings take particular care to ensure that they have a reasonable basis for their belief, and that the facts supporting it are stated in a transparent fashion in the claim form…It is therefore vitally important: (a) the jurisdiction is not wrongly asserted without reasonable belief; and (b) the grounds are clearly stated so that a jurisdictional challenge can, if necessary, be speedily and easily made.”

The service of a claim form within the jurisdiction is the subject of rule 7.5(1). That sets out the various methods of service and the applicable time limits (generally 4 months). Rule 7.5(2) is concerned with service out of the jurisdiction. It provides as follows:

“(2) Where the claim form is to be served out of the jurisdiction, the claim form must be served in accordance with Section IV of Part 6 within 6 months of the date of issue.”

Rule 7.6 is concerned with extensions of time for serving a claim form. It is in the following terms:

“(1) The claimant may apply for an order extending the period for compliance with rule 7.5.

(2) The general rule is that an application to extend the time for compliance with rule 7.5 must be made –

(a) within the period specified by rule 7.5; or

(b) where an order has been made under this rule, within the period for service specified by that order.

(3) If the claimant applies for an order to extend the time for compliance after the end of the period specified by rule 7.5 or by an order made under this rule, the court may make such an order only if –

(a) the court has failed to serve the claim form; or

(b) the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to comply with rule 7.5 but has been unable to do so; and

(c) in either case, the claimant has acted promptly in making the application.

(4) An application for an order extending the time for compliance with rule 7.5 –

(a) must be supported by evidence; and

(b) may be made without notice.”

Finally, there is r.3.9 which sets out the court's general power to rectify matters where there has been an error of procedure. It is in the following terms:

“(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application including the need —

(a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and;

(b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders;

(2) An application for relief must be supported by evidence.”

The importance of the commencement of proceedings, by way of a properly served claim form and particulars of claim, has been emphasised in a number of the authorities. In Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [201...