Orrick defeats a $74 million professional negligence claim at the London High Court as the case is ruled time-barred under the six-year limitation period

Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe has secured a full victory in a professional negligence claim brought against it in the London High Court, after the court ruled on Tuesday that the claim was filed outside the six-year limitation period under English law. The underlying claim, valued at approximately $74 million, arose from legal advice Orrick provided to a Nigerian travel company. The court's finding that the claim was time-barred means the merits of the negligence allegation were not adjudicated: the case failed on a procedural threshold rather than on the substantive question of whether the advice was deficient. The limitation period for professional negligence claims in England and Wales is generally six years from the date the cause of action accrues, which in negligence cases is typically the date on which the claimant suffered actionable loss. The precise date on which that loss crystallised is frequently the central battleground in limitation disputes, particularly where advice was given over an extended period or where the consequences of deficient advice only became apparent gradually. The case is a reminder that the limitation clock in legal malpractice (professional negligence by a lawyer) litigation runs from loss, not from discovery of the error, unless the claimant can rely on a deliberate concealment argument or the statutory extension for latent damage under relevant legislation. For law firms defending professional negligence claims, early identification of limitation arguments is a critical first line of defence, and this ruling reinforces that London courts will apply those rules strictly.