{"id":290183,"date":"2026-05-05T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-05T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=290183"},"modified":"2026-04-30T22:19:05","modified_gmt":"2026-04-30T20:19:05","slug":"2025-arbitration-year-in-review-saudi-arabia","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/05\/05\/2025-arbitration-year-in-review-saudi-arabia\/","title":{"rendered":"2025 Arbitration Year in Review: Saudi Arabia"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n\n\n\n

THE AUTHORS:<\/strong>
Zane Anani<\/strong>, Senior Knowledge Lawyer at Al Tamimi & Company<\/strong><\/a>
Muhammad El Haggan<\/strong>, Senior Associate at Al Tamimi & Company<\/strong><\/a>

<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

This article was featured in Jus Mundi<\/a>‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review<\/strong>, an annual publication analyzing arbitration developments across 40+ jurisdictions on 6 continents. This edition brings together young practitioners and senior experts to capture the year’s most significant legislative reforms, enforcement trends, and institutional innovations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Download now<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Saudi Arabia\u2019s arbitration framework is undergoing comprehensive modernization, reflecting broader legal reforms and economic policy under\u00a0<\/em>Saudi Vision 2030<\/em><\/a>. The\u00a0<\/em>Draft Arbitration Law<\/em><\/a>\u00a0released for consultation in October 2025 signals a clear shift toward a modern enforcement-friendly regime, intended to align domestic practice with international standards while preserving core Sharia-based public policy. In parallel, the courts continue to support arbitration and the institutional environment has matured\u2014anchored by the\u00a0<\/em>SCCA (Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration)<\/em><\/a>\u00a0and complemented by regulatory steps to strengthen institutional quality and the administration of ad hoc proceedings.\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article will discuss the legislative reform trajectory, the enforcement process for local and foreign awards, policy preferences favouring licensed institutional arbitration, and enhancements to ad hoc proceedings in\u00a0<\/em>Saudi Arabia<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Reform Trajectory: From the Board of Grievances to Specialized Enforcement and a Self-Contained Arbitration Law<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The core reform in Saudi arbitration began with the 2012 Arbitration Law (promulgated by\u00a0Royal Decree No. M\/34 of 1433H as amended<\/a>), modelled in significant part on international best practice, and the Enforcement Law (Royal Decree No. M\/53 of 1433H as amended<\/a>), which shifted execution proceedings to specialized Enforcement Courts. Historically, enforcement ran through the Board of Grievances, where awards, particularly foreign awards, were vulnerable to merits review and retrial risks, as exemplified by a\u00a0recent case<\/a>\u00a0in which a tribunal\u2019s dismissal of a USD 1.2 billion claim was effectively reversed on merits at the enforcement stage. Under the post-2012 framework, that paradigm changed. Enforcement judges now apply the Enforcement Law\u2019s statutory checks and reciprocity requirements, and their decisions benefit from finality safeguards under Article 6 of the Enforcement Law, reflected in the streamlined procedures and robust coercive measures available under Articles 46 and 47 when debtors procrastinate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Arbitration Law\u2019s autonomy has been crystallized in judicial practice. Courts have confirmed that arbitration is governed exclusively by the Arbitration Law and not by the Civil Procedures Law or the Commercial Courts Law, unless expressly stated. In a Riyadh Commercial Court case (No. 4670377800 before the Fifth Appellate Circuit), the court emphasized that the grounds for annulment are exhaustively set out in Article 50 of the Arbitration Law and that courts cannot import rules from other procedural codes to expand review. The Supreme Court, in case No. 41176982, reinforced that the Arbitration Law is a standalone regime. It stressed that annulment is the exclusive avenue for challenging awards and that judicial scrutiny cannot extend to the merits but is limited to ensuring compliance with the Arbitration Law, party-agreed rules, and overarching Shari\u2019ah and public order considerations. This jurisprudence, together with statutory provisions such as Article 49 (no appeal save annulment), Article 54 (enforcement is not automatically stayed by an annulment claim), and Article 25 (party autonomy to select procedures and institutional rules), underscores the law\u2019s self-contained nature and limits applied judicially with increasing consistency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, the\u00a0Draft of Arbitration Law<\/a>\u00a0released for consultation in October 2025 signals a comprehensive direction towards modernization. Its structure and content reflect international best practice adapted to Saudi legal fundamentals, while clarifying contested areas and codifying pro-arbitration judicial support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Foremost, the Draft Arbitration Law codifies a clean conflict rule for the law governing the arbitration agreement. Article 11 of the Draft Arbitration Law makes the parties\u2019 express choice paramount and defaults to the law of the seat in the absence of an express choice, replacing uncertainty that previously surrounded the applicable law to the arbitration agreement. This aligns the Kingdom with widely accepted principles and encourages clear clause drafting, particularly in cross-border projects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Equally important is the Draft Arbitration Law\u2019s articulation of tribunal competence and early court review. Article 28 of the Draft Arbitration Law confirms competence-competence, allowing the tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including objections to existence, validity, termination, or scope of the arbitration agreement. Article 28(4) of the Draft Arbitration Law introduces immediate court review of positive jurisdictional rulings without halting proceedings; a party may challenge a preliminary decision rejecting a jurisdictional objection before the competent court within thirty days, while the tribunal proceeds to the merits. This balances early judicial clarity against arbitral efficiency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With respect to interim measures, Articles 29 to 31 of the Draft Arbitration Law authorize tribunals to order interim and precautionary relief\u2014maintaining the status quo, preventing harm, preserving assets or evidence\u2014and provide a pathway to court enforcement. The criteria set in Article 30, requiring harm not adequately reparable by damages and a reasonable prospect of success on the merits, brings structure and predictability to urgent relief. Article 31 enables the competent court to enforce tribunal-ordered interim measures within fifteen days, and Article 65(3) allows short suspension of enforcement to cure formal defects without altering substance, reflecting a pragmatic cure-and-enforce philosophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Draft Arbitration Law also addresses multi-party complexity and case management. Article 37 permits joinder or intervention when the intervening party is a party to the arbitration agreement; Article 43 allows consolidation by party agreement. These mechanisms respond the needs of disputes arising in layered contract and multiple stakeholders dealings familiarly seen construction and infrastructure disputes. The law embraces electronic process and flexibility: Article 35 allows tribunals to meet physically or virtually; Article 36 sets Arabic as the default language while permitting other languages by agreement; and Article 52 prescribes award form and content, including reasons unless the award records settlement, with electronic signature recognized when agreed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arbitrator qualifications and immunity are also modernized. Article 20 of the Draft Arbitration Law removes rigid educational prerequisites, expanding the pool of eligible arbitrators while preserving capacity and integrity conditions. Article 27 introduces arbitrator immunity except in cases of fraud or gross professional misconduct, aligning with international norms and protecting independent decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Annulment and enforceability have improved to uphold awards while preserving mandatory safeguards. Article 61 of the Draft Arbitration Law channels recourse exclusively through an action to annul on limited grounds: <\/p>\n\n\n\n