CA-2025-001079 & CA-2025-002078 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1262

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