Mike Lynch estate blocked from appealing HPE damages ruling

The estate of the late British tech tycoon Mike Lynch has been refused permission to appeal a High Court ruling that found him liable to pay damages to Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) over its acquisition of Autonomy.

Lawyers acting for Lynch’s estate had sought to challenge the 2022 judgment, which held Lynch and Autonomy’s former chief financial officer Sushovan Hussain responsible for misleading the US tech giant ahead of its $11.1bn (£8.8bn) takeover in 2011.

The High Court denied permission to appeal both the original liability ruling and elements of a subsequent damages decision.

However, the estate retains the right to apply directly to the Court of Appeal.

HPE has been pursuing compensation following the collapse in Autonomy’s valuation, which was written down by $8.8bn within a year of the deal.

The US firm had initially sought damages of up to $5bn, though the eventual award is expected to be significantly lower.

Long-running dispute

The case has become one of the UK’s largest and most complex commercial disputes.

In 2022, the High Court ruled in favour of HPE, concluding that Lynch and Hussain had fraudulently inflated Autonomy’s financial position prior to the sale.

Hussain was previously convicted in the US, while Lynch was later acquitted of criminal charges by a jury in San Francisco.

Civil proceedings in London have continued, with the court last year awarding HPE around £700m in damages, which is far below the £1.35bn initially argued for by the company.

HPE welcomed the latest decision, viewing it as progress towards resolving the long-running litigation.

Lynch died in August 2024 after a super-yacht sank off the coast of Sicily, in an accident that also claimed the lives of his 18-year-old daughter Hannah and five others.

The trip had been intended as a celebration following his acquittal in the US.

His estate has continued to contest aspects of the civil case, arguing that the damages calculations, particularly interest claims, were excessive and based on flawed analysis.

Lawyers for the estate had argued there were grounds for appeal, claiming the High Court “erred in law”, and that there was a “compelling reason” for the case to be reconsidered.

However, HPE’s legal team said the appeal attempt was an effort to avoid the consequences of the earlier findings.

A further judgment on outstanding aspects of the damages case is expected at a later date.