The court's power to order alternative service under CPR 6.15 extends to the entirety of CPR 6 and not just to domestic disputes (Bayat Telephone Systems International Inc v Cecil followed). Email had been used for pre-action correspondence and the solicitors should have enquired whether email service was permitted by US law and, if it was, sought express consent to email service. Nonetheless, in order to avoid delay which might defeat the purpose of the Norwich Pharmacal proceedings to identify the author of allegedly defamatory statements on websites, alternative service was appropriate (Bacon v Automattic Inc www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1072.html).