You can break regulations and not have much of a problem (most of us have).
You can exceed limits and not have much of a problem (again, most of us have).
You cannot break physical laws without some problems arising. Unfortunately, we don't give any guidance about where the line between limitations and physical laws is drawn.
Are all limitations wise and reasonable limitations? Unfortunately not.
Are all limits set by the manufacturer? In the UK and other militaries, limitations may be set for reasons other than strict engineering reasons. The US Army's 'no more than 60 degress of roll or 30 degrees of pitch because that's aerobatics, and the helicopter was not certified for aerobatics' is a prime example.
Brother Lappos' upside Blackhawk on the cover of a magazine shortly after this edict is a case in point of how silly this limitation is.
It's been more than 20 years since I flew a UK Sea King, so I have forgotten all the numbers, and they have probably changed as well, so I can't comment on what numbers are given as limits.
For the scenario given, if the air was smooth, and the aircraft well tracked, exceeding the Vne by the small amount claimed may not have had any adverse effect. It would be wise to check with the manufacturer on things like pitch link life, etc.
Such are the rigors of a real operation - in the US civil world, rules can be broken to save human life, and a regulation permits this.
It appears from the discussion that most people take this into account wisely.