The English High Court has handed Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe a decisive win, granting summary judgment and striking out a $74 million negligence claim against its London office on limitation grounds.
In a ruling that turned heavily on timing, Mr Justice Cotter found that the claimants, a Nigerian company and its two owners, had failed to bring their case within the required statutory period, describing their delay in pursuing the claim as “truly extraordinary.”
The dispute arose from advice given by Orrick in connection with a 2018 investment deal involving entities linked to the Carlyle Group. The claimants alleged that Orrick’s advice left them exposed to a “predatory investor,” ultimately leading to severe financial and corporate consequences.
Deal Fallout and Alleged Losses
The court heard that the November 2018 agreements had “little short of disastrous” consequences for the claimants.
By October 2019, the individual owners had been removed from their company without notice. Just months later, in January 2020, the business was forced to relinquish its interest in a new venture to Carlyle for nominal consideration. The company was also left carrying approximately $28 million in liabilities to third parties.
The claimants valued their total losses at $74 million.
The Limitation Battle
A central issue was when the clock started running for limitation purposes.
Orrick argued that time began in November 2018, when the relevant contracts were executed. Although the parties later entered into a standstill agreement in October 2024, allowing proceedings to be issued by May 2025, the claimants failed to serve their initial claim in time.
They subsequently issued a second claim in November 2025. Orrick contended that this second claim was statute-barred.
The claimants countered that no actionable loss arose until January 2020, when the commercial consequences of the deal became clear. On that basis, they argued the second claim was still within time.
“Baffling” Delay
Mr Justice Cotter rejected that argument, holding that the primary limitation period began in November 2018.
He further ruled that the claimants could not rely on the alternative three-year “date of knowledge” extension under section 14A of the Limitation Act 1980.
The claimants said they only acquired the necessary knowledge in September 2022, when they began seeking legal advice. The court disagreed.
Instead, Cotter J found that by January 2020, when the claimants lost control of their business, they had sufficient information to prompt a reasonable person to investigate potential negligence.
He described the two-year delay between January 2020 and September 2022 as “baffling,” noting that the claimants had previously proceeded on the basis that the limitation period ran from the 2018 contracts.
Claim “Unrealistic”
The judge concluded that the case was unusually clear-cut.
He described the claimants’ reliance on section 14A as “unrealistic,” adding that their fallback arguments only arose because they had failed to pursue the claim within what they had earlier accepted was the applicable limitation period.
“It was never previously suggested that a lack of actionable damage and/or section 14 would provide a later date,” he said, pointing to the parties’ decision to enter into a standstill agreement as evidence that time was already understood to be running.
Summary Judgment Granted
Dismissing the action, Cotter J granted summary judgment in Orrick’s favour, holding that there was “no realistic prospect” of the claimants establishing that their claims were not statute-barred.
