THE AUTHORS:
Sabrina Zhou, Partner at Abdulaziz Bin Ali Law Firm
Ammad Manzur, Senior Legal Consultant at Abdulaziz Bin Ali & Partners Law Firm
Introduction
Following a resolution of the Council of Ministers, a new draft arbitration law has been published by the National Competitiveness Centre in October 2025 (the “Draft Law”), aimed at modernizing Saudi Arabia’s arbitration regime. While the current Arbitration Law, enacted by Royal Decree No. M/34 on 16 April, 2012 (the “Arbitration Law”), is also based in large part on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (2006) (the “Model Law”), the Draft Law seeks to introduce further reforms to align the Saudi arbitration regime with global best practices.
This post shall examine the reforms that the Draft Law proposes in order to recalibrate the role of courts in the arbitral process. These reforms seek to promote efficiency and party autonomy in a manner which aligns with institutional practice, particularly that of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (the “SCCA”).
Challenging the Arbitral Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
Under the Draft Law, the principle of competence-competence has been retained. Thus, the parties’ chosen arbitral tribunal is empowered to rule on its jurisdiction, including with respect to the termination and invalidity of the arbitration agreement as well as whether the subject matter of the dispute is covered therein.
Critically, however, in a marked departure from the Arbitration Law’s existing regime on challenging an arbitral tribunal’s finding of jurisdiction, the Draft Law proposes a mechanism whereby such a finding may be challenged before court.
The Benefits of an Early Challenge
Under Article 28(4) of the Draft Law, parties may approach the court and “object” to such a preliminary ruling by the arbitral tribunal within a period of thirty (30) days from the date thereof. Currently, under Article 22(3) of the Arbitration Law, such a finding of jurisdiction may only be challenged through an application to set aside the final award, pursuant to the grounds provided under Article 50 thereof.
This proposed reform would bring the Saudi arbitration regime closer to the Model Law. Article 16(3) of the Model Law also provides that a positive ruling on jurisdiction, if decided by the arbitral tribunal as a preliminary question, may be challenged before a competent court within a period of thirty (30) days from the date thereof. The proposal to challenge the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction in such manner, will also streamline the mechanism for challenges with institutional practice mandated under the SCCA Arbitration Rules, 2023 (“SCCA Rules”). Under Article 24(3) of the SCCA Rules, parties must challenge the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction no later than the answer to the request for arbitration.
The introduction of such a right has the obvious advantage of saving the parties the trouble — and, more importantly, costs — associated with going through with the entire arbitration where the issue of the tribunal’s jurisdiction itself is not settled. Further, the possibility of abuse of this through frivolous applications regarding the tribunal’s jurisdiction has also been addressed, as Article 28(4) of the Draft Law provides that a challenge thereunder shall not stay proceedings before the arbitral tribunal.
The Scope of Judicial Review
Aside from the practical benefits of allowing parties to challenge the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction, it is also important to consider the substantive scope of judicial review under the proposed provision in the Draft Law.
From the language used in Article 28(4) of the Draft Law, it is obvious that the right to “object” to a finding of jurisdiction is different in nature from the right to contest the same by way of a challenge to the final award, pursuant to the limited grounds for setting aside an award. Thus, one may argue that such right to object is akin to an appeal, since that is the language used in Article 16(3) of the Model Law from which Article 28(4) draws inspiration.
Most jurisdictions that have adopted this provision from the Model Law into their arbitration legislations allow for a de novo review of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction, whereby the matter is considered afresh by the court in appeal. This standard was enunciated in the seminal decision of Dallah v. Pakistan. The UK Supreme Court held that judicial review of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction under Section 67 of the English Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (the “EAA”) requires a complete rehearing, without regard to the arbitral tribunal’s reasoning such that the court has the “last word” on the matter.
However, this standard of review had come under considerable scrutiny, with critics arguing that it has the effect of reducing the hearing before the arbitral tribunal to a mere dress rehearsal. To address this, the English legislature has amended Section 67 of the EAA under the Arbitration Act of 2025, following which courts may now only carry out a limited review of the arbitral tribunal’s decision; rather than having a complete rehearing, with parties (generally) not allowed to introduce new evidence and arguments.
Notably, no such restrictions are found in Article 28(4) of the Draft Law, because of which it remains to be seen whether the Saudi courts would order a complete rehearing of the matter, in a manner similar to Dallah v. Pakistan, or adopt the favored restricted approach to judicial review of the arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction.
Supporting the Arbitral Tribunal in the Enforcement of Urgent Interim Measures
A significant change under the Draft Law is the introduction of a robust regime on arbitral tribunal-ordered provisional and precautionary interim measures in aid of arbitration (hereafter, “Interim Measures”) and their enforcement through courts, which assume a subsidiary and supportive role in the process. Currently, arbitral tribunals do not have the power to order such a wide variety of Interim Measures under the Arbitration Law.
Empowering Arbitral Tribunals to Grant Interim Measures
Interim Measures play a crucial role in ensuring that the arbitral process is not frustrated by a recalcitrant party looking to avoid the consequences of the arbitration agreement it has entered into. Article 29 of the Draft Law empowers arbitral tribunals to order a variety of Interim Measures, including:
- Preservation or restoration of the status quo;
- Prevention of present or imminent harm;
- Preservation of assets; and
- Preservation of evidence.
The conditions that are to be satisfied by the party requesting an Interim Measure are stipulated in Article 30 of the Draft Law. These include demonstrating to the arbitral tribunal that refusal of the Interim Measure will likely result in harm which is not compensable through the final award as well as a reasonable possibility of success on merits.
The inclusion of the abovesaid Articles 29 and 30 of the Draft Law would bring the Saudi arbitration regime on Interim Measures closer to international best practices on the subject. In fact, the Model Law, under Articles 17 and 17 A, provides for a similar set of Interim Measures that may be ordered by arbitral tribunals subject to similar conditions.
Notably, the Interim Measures and the conditions for their grant provided under the Draft Law mirror those provided under Article 28 of the SCCA Rules. This demonstrates how the Draft Law has consciously been drafted with the aim to lend support to institutional arbitration in Saudi Arabia.
A Supportive Role for the Courts
The Draft Law envisages a supportive role for the courts in the context of Interim Measures, which varies significantly from the one currently contemplated under the Arbitration Law.
Currently, under Article 22(1) of the Arbitration Law, a party may request the court for grant of an interim measure where either arbitration proceedings have not been commenced; or, thereafter, upon the request of the arbitral tribunal.
By contrast, under Article 46 (1) of the Draft Law, interim relief by courts may only be ordered prior to the composition of the arbitral tribunal; and, thereafter, upon the arbitral tribunal’s request. At first blush, this proposed change under the Draft Law — which restricts the ability of courts to order interim relief before the composition of the arbitral tribunal rather than before the commencement of arbitration proceedings, as under the present Arbitration Law — may appear to be of little consequence. However, when read in conjunction with other provisions of the Draft Law, it becomes clear why this proposed change fundamentally alters the role of courts in the context of Interim Measures.
Reference is made to Article 1 of the Draft Law, which amends the definition of the term “Arbitral Tribunal” to also include within its scope emergency arbitrators, appointed pursuant to the parties’ chosen rules of arbitration (hereafter, “Emergency Arbitrator”). By way of example, under the SCCA Rules, an Emergency Arbitrator may be appointed by the SCCA Court within one (1) business day at the request of a party, prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceedings. Thus, the power to appoint an Emergency Arbitrator under the SCCA Rules when read together with Article 46 of the Draft Law, reveals that the jurisdiction of courts to order interim relief has been considerably restricted under the proposed law. Under the present Arbitration Law, courts are empowered to order such relief until such time that the arbitration proceedings have formally commenced and the arbitral tribunal proper has been constituted.
With the court’s jurisdiction to order interim relief being curtailed, the Draft Law restricts the role of courts to simply enforce tribunal-ordered Interim Measures, irrespective of where the arbitral tribunal may be seated. Specifically, Article 31 of the Draft Law enables a party which has secured a tribunal-ordered Interim Measure, to seek its enforcement through court by way of a petition. Such petition may only be refused by the court under very limited circumstances and the court is under a general obligation to urgently enforce the Interim Measure sought within fifteen (15) days. This mechanism for enforcement of Interim Measures is very similar to the one provided under Articles 17 H-I of the Model Law, which also stipulate that courts are to recognize them as binding, subject to very limited grounds of refusal.
Nevertheless, the importance of the limited role for the courts as enforcing tribunal-ordered Interim Measures cannot be overstated because courts possess coercive powers which may prove instrumental in certain instances, e.g., where a third party is involved.
Staying Annulment Proceedings
Under Article 61(5) of the Draft Law, the court seized of an action for annulment of an arbitral award, may, at the request of a party, stay such proceedings for a period of up to sixty (60) days. This is to enable a party to request the arbitral tribunal to modify the form of the award so that any grounds for annulment may be removed.
This is a unique provision under the Draft Law, aimed at promoting the enforcement of arbitral awards. This provision is a standalone mechanism for rectification of awards, different in substance from the court’s power to partially set aside awards contained in Article 61(1)(f) of the Draft Law, whereby the court may order setting aside part of the award which relates to matters falling outside the purview of the arbitration agreement. Instead, Article 61(5) appears to be more aligned with Article 39 of the SCCA Rules, which provides for a mechanism whereby the arbitral tribunal may, at the request of a party, order an interpretation of the award and also correct any clerical, typographical and computational errors therein.
Although the scope for rectification of the award under Article 61(5) of the Draft Law extends to removal of all grounds for annulment provided in Article 61 (1) thereof, it remains to be seen how such a rectification may be carried out in practice. This is because after issuance of the award, the arbitral tribunal is rendered functus officio under the arbitration rules of most arbitral institutions, save for the purpose of correction of the award to the limited extent as contemplated under Article 39 of the SCCA Rules.
Having said that, the introduction of Article 61(5) of the Draft Law is a welcome development, since it requires courts to exercise restraint in setting aside awards, and provides parties with an opportunity to stay the annulment proceedings in an attempt to save the arbitral award.
Conclusion
The Draft Law reflects a clear effort to recalibrate the role of courts in a manner that promotes party autonomy and aligns the Saudi arbitration regime more closely with the Model Law and the SCCA Rules. The proposed changes, ranging from challenges to jurisdictional findings by the arbitral tribunal to limiting judicial involvement in the context of interim relief and the introduction of a stay of annulment proceedings, point towards a more arbitral tribunal-centric framework.
Much will, however, depend on how courts interpret these provisions in practice. Their application will be key in determining whether the Draft Law succeeds in fostering a more institutionally oriented arbitration landscape in Saudi Arabia.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Sabrina Zhou is the first Arabic-speaking, Chinese-qualified lawyer to practice in Saudi Arabia. She has extensive experience in handling construction dispute projects within the Kingdom, representing several large Chinese companies across sectors such as Oil & Gas, Petrochemicals, Electricity, and Construction. Her expertise spans various M&A and foreign direct investment transactions, where she has provided comprehensive legal services, including deal structuring, key decision-making participation, negotiation, drafting, and implementation of transaction documentation, as well as operational support. In addition, Ms. Zhou has represented Chinese multinational corporations and continues to offer strategic legal counsel on disputes, operations, and regulatory compliance in the Middle East. Renowned for her ability to bridge legal and cultural gaps, she brings invaluable practical experience and a cross-border perspective to complex legal and international arbitration matters across the MENA region and beyond. Currently, she serves as a Partner at Abdulaziz Bin Ali Law Firm.
Ammad Manzur is a Senior Legal Consultant at Abdulaziz Bin Ali & Partners Law Firm. He has significant experience in commercial dispute resolution before international arbitration institutions, such as the LCIA, ICC and SCCA. Apart from acting for clients in complex energy and infrastructure sector international arbitrations, he also represented them in arbitration-related litigation, including enforcement of arbitral awards and securing court-ordered interim relief. Ammad combines professional practice with active scholarly and policy engagement. He has, by invitation, provided expert comments as part of a legislative consultation process on Pakistan’s proposed arbitration law and also delivered a lecture at the Brunel University London. He is a licensed Advocate of the High Courts of Pakistan .
*The views and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.
