STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Ghana’s Supreme Court has dismissed a final appeal by Springfield Exploration and Production, clearing the way for the enforcement of nearly $10 million in LCIA arbitral awards in favour of Stena Unicon.
- The case centred on whether the London tribunal’s application of the 2020 LCIA Rules — rather than the 2014 rules in force when the drilling contract was signed — violated Springfield’s right to a fair hearing.
- The Supreme Court rejected that argument, ruling that institutional arbitration rules apply as they stand at the commencement of proceedings, not at contract signing.
- The ruling comes as Ghana’s government weighs a potential state acquisition of Springfield’s offshore block, with the company’s unresolved debts a live concern for investors.
When the drillship Stena Forth completed its work on the Afina-1 well off Ghana’s Western coast in 2019, it was a milestone for Springfield Exploration and Production Limited — the Ghanaian independent that had staked its claim to deep water oil at the West Cape Three Points Block 2.
Over 64 days, Springfield drilled the Afina-1x Well to a total depth of 4,082 metres in approximately 1,030 metres of water, completing its maiden deepwater drilling campaign offshore Ghana.
What followed, however, was not the triumphant production story Springfield had promised. It was a years-long legal battle over unpaid bills — one that has now reached a definitive conclusion at Ghana’s Supreme Court.
A Contract, a Drillship, and Fifteen Unpaid Invoices
The dispute traces back to the commercial terms underlying that 2019 drilling campaign.
Stena Unicon Offshore Services Ghana Limited, the contractor that deployed the Stena Forth, subsequently found itself unable to recover payment from Springfield for services rendered.
The company holds two London-seated LCIA awards for unpaid offshore drilling services, dated 31 August 2021, for US$6,613,005.35 (with accumulated interest), and Award 2, an LCIA costs award dated 7 October 2021, for £179,564.15.
Together, the awards approached nearly US$10 million.
Springfield had offered explanations for the delay: it argued exemption from certain taxes applicable to the invoices and pointed to the Covid-19 pandemic’s disruption of its fundraising efforts.
Neither argument held at the London tribunal.
After losing in arbitration, Springfield turned to Ghana’s courts to resist enforcement — a strategy that has now failed at every level of the judicial hierarchy.
The Rules Dispute
At the heart of Springfield’s appeal to the Supreme Court was a procedural objection.
The company argued that the London tribunal had applied the 2020 LCIA Rules — which introduced an “Early Determination” mechanism allowing expedited dismissal of weak defences — rather than the 2014 Rules that were in place when the contract was originally signed.
Springfield contended this constituted a material procedural change that compromised its ability to mount a full defence.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument in terms that will resonate beyond this case. The court held that because Springfield and Stena had not expressly stipulated that the 2014 Rules would govern, the applicable rules were those in force when arbitration commenced.
Relying on established English jurisprudence — including China Agribusiness Development Corp v. Balli Trading [1998] — the court held that a reference to an arbitration institution in a contract is a reference to that institution’s rules as they stand at the time proceedings begin, not the rules as they stood at signing.
The court went further, noting that the 2014 Rules (Article 14.5) had already granted tribunals the “widest discretion” for the expeditious conduct of proceedings. “Early Determination,” the justices concluded, was a clarification of existing tribunal powers, not a radical departure from them.
Springfield’s fairness arguments fared no better. The court found that the company had been present at, and represented during, every stage of the London proceedings — attending video conferences and being advised by legal counsel throughout.
A Technicality That Came Too Late
Springfield mounted a secondary line of attack, arguing that a Power of Attorney used by Stena’s lawyers was unstamped under Ghana’s Stamp Duty Act and therefore inadmissible.
The Supreme Court declined to entertain it. Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Evidence Act, 1975, objections to the admissibility of evidence must be raised at the trial stage, not on appeal.
Because Springfield had not raised the objection before the High Court, it could not deploy the technicality to unwind the case at the Supreme Court.
The justices held that an erroneous admission of evidence warrants reversal only where it has occasioned a substantial miscarriage of justice — and that threshold, they found, was not met.
Investors Are Watching
The ruling lands at a sensitive moment for Springfield.
Ghana’s government is weighing the acquisition of Springfield’s interest in West Cape Three Points Block 2, a deepwater block in the Tano Basin offshore the country’s western coast, and Springfield is in discussions to sell its stake to the state-owned Ghana National Petroleum Corporation — a move that could reshape Ghana’s upstream sector.
Stena Drilling CEO Erik Ronsberg has said that settling the debt would help preserve investor confidence as the government considers taking over the asset.
That framing — linking Springfield’s unpaid obligations directly to the state’s appetite for its block — suggests the enforcement saga will remain entangled with the commercial future of one of Ghana’s most-watched offshore assets.
What the Ruling Means
For Ghana’s commercial legal landscape, the Supreme Court’s decision carries weight beyond the parties.
By affirming that foreign arbitral awards will not be lightly impeached on procedural grounds, the court has reinforced Ghana’s alignment with the international arbitration framework — a factor of significance to the foreign drilling contractors, service companies, and investors that populate the country’s offshore energy sector.
The ruling also establishes, with clarity, that parties who wish to be governed by a specific version of an institutional rule set must say so explicitly. Silence on the matter will be read as acceptance of the rules in force when arbitration begins.
With the Supreme Court’s dismissal, legal avenues for Springfield appear exhausted.
The focus now shifts to the practical question of how, and when, the awards will be satisfied.
Source: Dennis Law
This article was edited with AI and reviewed by human editors
