Nigeria's £44m Costs Claim Against P&ID: Detailed Assessment Hearing Opens in London

Nigeria’s £44 million costs claim against Process and Industrial Developments Limited (P&ID) entered its most consequential phase on 13 July 2026, when a detailed assessment hearing opened in the English courts, listed for 15 sitting days through 31 July 2026. The hearing follows a chain of landmark rulings that began with the 2023 Commercial Court judgment setting aside the original US $11 billion arbitral award on grounds of bribery and perjury, and culminated in the UK Supreme Court’s October 2025 decision upholding the costs order. Nigeria’s bill of costs runs to more than 3,000 pages and claims approximately £44. 2 million, rising to around £50 million with interest, while P&ID has already paid roughly £23. 7 million on account.

For arbitration practitioners and in-house counsel across Nigeria and beyond, the outcome will set important benchmarks for cost exposure in large-scale arbitral fraud claims.

What This Article Covers

• Current status. Where the P&ID costs assessment hearing stands as of July 2026 and what the key figures mean.
• English procedure. How a 15-day detailed assessment works in the Commercial Court, step by step.
• Quantum breakdown. What Nigeria is claiming, category by category, and what the court is likely to scrutinise.
• Arbitral fraud implications. Why the P&ID saga reshaped international attitudes toward fraud in investor-state arbitration.
• Nigerian enforcement. How the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 (sections 57–58) and the Federal High Court decision in FBNQuest Trustees v RCICAL (8 May 2026) affect domestic enforcement strategy.
• Third-party funder exposure. The risk that litigation funders face costs orders and what counsel should do about it.
• Practical checklist. Concrete action items for in-house teams, government lawyers, and procurement officers.

Key Facts and Timeline of Nigeria’s £44 Million Costs Claim Against P&ID

Key takeaway: The current hearing is the first occasion on which an English costs judge will scrutinise, line by line, whether each item in Nigeria’s 3,000-page bill was reasonably and proportionately incurred.

What Is a Detailed Costs Assessment Hearing in England?

Key takeaway: A detailed assessment is a forensic, item-by-item judicial review of a winning party’s legal costs, fundamentally different from a quick summary assessment conducted at the end of a one-day hearing.

In English civil procedure, costs assessments come in two forms. A summary assessment takes place at the conclusion of shorter hearings and typically involves a judge reviewing a concise schedule. A detailed assessment, the procedure at issue in the P&ID costs assessment hearing, is reserved for more complex cases and involves a dedicated, multi-day hearing before a costs judge.

Documents the Judge Expects

The receiving party (here, Nigeria) must file an itemised bill of costs broken down into phases of the litigation. Each entry sets out the work done, the fee earner responsible, the time spent, and the rate charged. Supporting schedules cover disbursements, expert fees, counsel’s fees, travel, translation, document management platforms, plus any applicable VAT. A statement of truth signed by the receiving party’s solicitor certifies accuracy. The paying party (P&ID) then files points of dispute, challenging specific items as unreasonable, disproportionate, or unnecessary. Nigeria may reply with points of reply.

How a 15-Day Hearing Is Typically Structured

• Days 1–2. Opening submissions from both sides; the judge establishes ground rules and identifies the main areas of dispute.
• Days 3–10. The judge works through the bill phase by phase. Counsel make oral submissions on contested items. Witness evidence may be called on discrete issues, for example, whether overseas counsel’s rates reflect market norms or whether specific expert reports were necessary.
• Days 11–13. Disputed disbursements (travel, document review platforms, forensic accounting) and any arguments on interest calculations.
• Days 14–15. Closing submissions on proportionality and any remaining “global” challenges. The judge may reserve judgment.

Common Dispute Points

In high-value international disputes, costs judges typically scrutinise counsel’s hourly rates against market comparators, challenge the necessity of multiple expert teams, and test whether overseas travel was genuinely required. The distinction between standard-basis and indemnity-basis costs is critical: on an indemnity basis, the burden shifts to the paying party to show that items were unreasonably incurred, which substantially favours the receiving party. Reports indicate that Nigeria’s costs were awarded on an indemnity basis, a direct consequence of the fraud findings.

Nigeria’s £44 Million Costs Claim Against P&ID, Figures Explained

Key takeaway: The headline figure of approximately £44.2 million covers solicitors’ fees, multiple counsel teams, forensic experts, overseas travel, and technology costs, but a detailed assessment will almost certainly reduce selected items.

The concept of proportionality requires the costs judge to step back and ask whether the total claimed bears a reasonable relationship to the value of the claim, the complexity of the issues, and the conduct of the parties. Industry observers expect that while the indemnity basis will protect Nigeria from aggressive line-by-line reductions, the judge may nonetheless apply proportionality to discrete categories, particularly where multiple counsel teams addressed overlapping issues.

Why P&ID Changed the Global Conversation on Arbitration Fraud

Key takeaway: The P&ID case established that arbitral awards procured through bribery and perjury can be set aside by supervisory courts, and that the costs consequences of fraud are severe and far-reaching.

Before the P&ID saga, the prospect of an arbitral award exceeding US $11 billion being entirely voided for fraud was largely theoretical. The 2023 Commercial Court judgment found that key witnesses had given perjured evidence, that bribes were paid to Nigerian officials to facilitate the underlying Gas Supply and Processing Agreement, and that the entire contractual relationship was tainted by corruption. This was not a case of procedural irregularity, it was systemic fraud reaching into the formation of the contract itself.

The practical consequences for the global arbitration community are significant. Counterparty due diligence now occupies a far more prominent place in pre-arbitration planning. Counsel advising sovereign states and state-owned enterprises have revised their risk matrices to account for the possibility that fraudulently obtained awards can generate enormous legal costs even when successfully challenged. The P&ID precedent reinforces the principle that arbitration fraud carries not only the risk of criminal prosecution but also staggering financial exposure in costs, a deterrent the market had not fully internalised before this case. For those researching top jurisdictions for international arbitration and dispute resolution, the P&ID outcome highlights England’s robust supervisory jurisdiction.

Nigerian Enforcement After the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023

Key takeaway: The Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 has modernised Nigeria’s enforcement framework, and the Federal High Court’s decision in FBNQuest Trustees v RCICAL (8 May 2026) provides the first significant judicial test of the new regime.

Sections 57 and 58 of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 establish a pro-enforcement architecture for arbitral awards in Nigeria. Section 57 sets out the conditions under which an arbitral award, whether domestic or foreign, may be recognised and enforced by a Nigerian court. Section 58 specifies the limited grounds on which enforcement may be refused, aligning closely with the grounds found in the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. Together, these provisions are designed to make Nigeria a more predictable and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.

Steps to Enforce in Nigeria Under the 2023 Act

• Step 1. File an application for recognition and enforcement before the Federal High Court, supported by an authenticated copy of the award (or costs order), the arbitration agreement, and any certified translations.
• Step 2. Serve the respondent with the application and supporting documents in compliance with applicable court rules. For guidance on service of court processes under Nigerian law, practitioners should review the procedural requirements carefully.
• Step 3. The respondent may raise defences under section 58, including incapacity, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, or public policy grounds.
• Step 4. The court determines the application. Under the pro-enforcement framework, the burden falls on the party resisting enforcement to establish a defence.

The FBNQuest Trustees v RCICAL Test Case (8 May 2026)

The Federal High Court’s decision in FBNQuest Trustees v RCICAL, delivered on 8 May 2026, is the most significant early application of sections 57–58 of the 2023 Act. The decision confirmed the court’s willingness to apply the pro-enforcement presumption and to scrutinise defences narrowly. Early indications suggest that Nigerian courts will follow the globally prevailing trend of limiting public-policy objections to genuinely exceptional circumstances, rather than treating them as a broad gateway for re-litigating the merits.

Cross-Border Recognition Issues

Where an English costs order is made following the detailed assessment hearing, enforcement in Nigeria will depend on the characterisation of the order. If treated as a court judgment (rather than an arbitral award), enforcement may proceed under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments regime or common-law rules. The practical effect, industry observers expect, will be that Nigeria can pursue P&ID’s assets in multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, making asset-tracing and enforcement strategy a priority for both parties. Questions around how arbitration agreements interact with formal requirements remain relevant to enforcement planning.

Key Procedural Differences: England vs Nigeria

Third-Party Funders and Cost-Risk Exposure

Key takeaway: Litigation funders who bankroll claims that fail, or that are tainted by fraud, face increasing exposure to third-party costs orders in both English and Nigerian courts.

The P&ID proceedings have included applications for third-party costs orders against entities alleged to have funded P&ID’s defence and enforcement efforts, including VR Global Partners. The Court of Appeal, while dismissing Nigeria’s appeal on a specific third-party costs application, acknowledged the court’s jurisdiction to make such orders and described the overall costs as a “staggering amount.” This commentary signals that funders cannot assume they will be insulated from adverse costs consequences merely because they are not parties of record.

For funders and the parties they back, the practical message is clear: funding agreements should include explicit provisions addressing costs exposure, indemnity obligations, and termination triggers linked to fraud findings. Counsel acting for funded parties should conduct enhanced due diligence on the funder’s capitalisation and its ability to meet a potential costs order. Investors considering opportunities in jurisdictions like Nigeria, including in sectors such as Nigeria’s petroleum industry, should factor third-party funding risk into their dispute-resolution planning.

Practical Checklist for In-House Counsel and Public Bodies

Key takeaway: The P&ID saga offers concrete lessons for contract drafting, counterparty vetting, and dispute-resolution planning that every in-house team should act on now.

• 1. Audit arbitration clauses. Review all existing arbitration agreements for seat, governing law, institutional rules, and multi-tier dispute escalation. Ensure the clause reflects current best practice.
• 2. Vet counterparties rigorously. Conduct enhanced due diligence on beneficial ownership, corporate history, and litigation track record before signing any agreement with a material arbitration clause.
• 3. Include fraud warranties and representations. Require contractual representations that no party has engaged in bribery, corruption, or fraudulent conduct in connection with the agreement.
• 4. Negotiate cost-capping clauses. Where appropriate, include provisions that cap recoverable costs or require the parties to agree on costs budgets at the outset of any dispute.
• 5. Require escrow or security for costs. For high-value agreements, consider requiring parties to post security or establish escrow accounts that can be drawn upon if a costs order is made.
• 6. Address third-party funder due diligence. If a counterparty is litigation-funded, request disclosure of the funder’s identity, capitalisation, and the terms of the funding agreement.
• 7. Include indemnity provisions for fraud-related costs. Draft indemnities that specifically cover legal costs arising from any finding of fraud, bribery, or corruption.
• 8. Establish early-settlement triggers. Build contractual mechanisms (e.g., mandatory mediation windows, cooling-off periods) that encourage early resolution before costs escalate.
• 9. Review insurance coverage. Confirm that existing professional indemnity and directors’ and officers’ policies respond to costs exposure arising from fraud-related disputes.
• 10. Monitor legislative changes. Track developments under the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 and any implementing regulations that may affect enforcement strategy.
• 11. Coordinate multi-jurisdictional enforcement. Where assets are spread across jurisdictions, develop an enforcement roadmap that sequences applications in England, Nigeria, and any other relevant forum.
• 12. Document decision-making. Maintain contemporaneous records of all decisions relating to dispute strategy, costs budgeting, and settlement discussions, these records may be relevant in any future costs assessment.

What to Watch Next

Key takeaway: Several live developments will shape the final outcome of Nigeria’s £44 million costs claim against P&ID and its enforcement in the months ahead.

• Detailed assessment judgment. The costs judge is expected to deliver a reserved judgment after the 31 July 2026 hearing closes. The final assessed figure will determine how much of the £23.7 million already paid on account is applied and whether P&ID must pay a further balance.
• Appeal possibilities. Either party may seek permission to appeal discrete aspects of the assessment, particularly on proportionality or the treatment of specific disbursement categories.
• UK enforcement steps. Once a final costs order is made, Nigeria can pursue enforcement against P&ID’s assets in England and other jurisdictions.
• Nigerian enforcement filings. Monitor whether Nigeria or any related party initiates enforcement proceedings under sections 57–58 of the Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 in the Federal High Court.
• Funder exposure developments. Watch for any renewed third-party costs applications, including against VR Global Partners or other entities linked to P&ID’s funding.

Conclusion: Strategic Implications of Nigeria’s £44 Million Costs Claim Against P&ID

The detailed assessment hearing running through July 2026 represents the final major chapter in a dispute that has redefined how sovereign states, arbitration practitioners, and litigation funders think about fraud risk and cost exposure. Nigeria’s £44 million costs claim against P&ID is not merely a bilateral dispute, it is a case study in the systemic consequences of arbitration fraud, the power of English supervisory courts to unwind tainted awards, and the cross-jurisdictional enforcement tools now available under modern legislation such as Nigeria’s Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023.

For in-house counsel and public bodies, the practical imperative is to act before the next dispute arises: audit arbitration clauses, tighten counterparty vetting, secure adequate cost protection, and monitor the evolving enforcement landscape in both England and Nigeria. Those who have previously reviewed background coverage of the P&ID costs claim should treat this updated analysis as a basis for revising their dispute-resolution risk assessments immediately.

Sources

1. Global Law Experts, Nigeria’s £44m Costs Claim Against P&ID
2. Law Gazette, Court of Appeal Criticises ‘Staggering’ £44m Costs in Nigeria Arbitration Row
3. BusinessDay, Nigeria Wins as UK Supreme Court Upholds £44m Costs Order Against P&ID
4. Vanguard, UK Supreme Court Rules in Favour of Nigeria in £44m Legal Costs Dispute with P&ID
5. TheNigeriaLawyer, UK Court of Appeal Dismisses Nigeria’s Appeal in P&ID Third-Party Costs Application