THE AUTHORS:
Zane Anani, Senior Knowledge Lawyer at Al Tamimi & Company
Muhammad El Haggan, Senior Associate at Al Tamimi & Company
This article was featured in Jus Mundi‘s 2025 Arbitration Year in Review, 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.
Saudi Arabia’s arbitration framework is undergoing comprehensive modernization, reflecting broader legal reforms and economic policy under Saudi Vision 2030. The Draft Arbitration Law released 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—anchored by the SCCA (Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration) and complemented by regulatory steps to strengthen institutional quality and the administration of ad hoc proceedings.
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 Saudi Arabia.
The Reform Trajectory: From the Board of Grievances to Specialized Enforcement and a Self-Contained Arbitration Law
The core reform in Saudi arbitration began with the 2012 Arbitration Law (promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/34 of 1433H as amended), modelled in significant part on international best practice, and the Enforcement Law (Royal Decree No. M/53 of 1433H as amended), 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 recent case in which a tribunal’s 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’s 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.
The Arbitration Law’s 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’ah 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’s self-contained nature and limits applied judicially with increasing consistency.
Furthermore, the Draft of Arbitration Law released 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.
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’ 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.
Equally important is the Draft Arbitration Law’s 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.
With respect to interim measures, Articles 29 to 31 of the Draft Arbitration Law authorize tribunals to order interim and precautionary relief—maintaining the status quo, preventing harm, preserving assets or evidence—and 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.
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.
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.
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:
- absence or invalidity of the arbitration agreement;
- party incapacity at formation;
- lack of proper notice resulting in inability to defend;
- disregard of the agreed applicable law;
- tribunal composition or appointment in violation of mandatory provisions;
- excess of scope with severability where possible; and
- violation of the parties’ agreed procedure or mandatory provisions.
The court must also set aside the award if it conflicts with Shar’iah or public policy in the Kingdom or concerns matters not arbitrable under the law. Crucially, Article 61(5) empowers the court to suspend annulment for up to sixty days to permit the tribunal to cure formal defects without altering substance, reinforcing a preference for validation where feasible. Article 63 gives awards res judicata effect regardless of the country of issuance, and Article 66 routes appeals of enforcement orders to the Supreme Court, consolidating a coherent enforcement hierarchy.
Taken together, the draft law codifies arbitral autonomy with defined court support, modernizes interim relief and multi-party tools, and streamlines annulment and enforcement to ensure certainty and efficacy for parties arbitrating in or connected to Saudi Arabia.
Enforcement of Arbitral Awards: Domestic and Foreign
Enforcement in Saudi Arabia has evolved and is anchored in the Enforcement Law and supported by the arbitration framework. The Execution Courts, acting under the Enforcement Law and its Implementing Regulations, have streamlined domestic and foreign award execution. Applications are made to the competent enforcement judge and must be accompanied by the execution document.
The enhanced enforcement architecture has yielded practical results. By way of example, a landmark Riyadh Enforcement Court decision in 2016 recognized and enforced an ICC award rendered in London against a Saudi-domiciled respondent, converting it into an executable Saudi judgment. That case was notable for navigating the transition from the Board of Grievances to the Enforcement Courts and for affirming that foreign awards meeting reciprocity and due process standards, and not contravening Shari’ah or public policy, are enforceable within the Kingdom. Procedurally, Article 11 of the Enforcement Law sets out the conditions for foreign award enforcement, including verification of the foreign tribunal’s competence under its conflict rules, finality at the seat, and non-contradiction with existing Saudi judgments or public policy. For domestic awards, Article 53 of the Arbitration Law requires lodging the original or attested award, the arbitration agreement, an accredited Arabic translation, and proof of deposit with the competent court within fifteen days of issuance, with Article 55(2) mandating a judicial check for due process, finality, and public policy compliance prior to issuing an enforcement order.
The Enforcement Law’s coercive apparatus has proven central to execution effectiveness. Articles 46 and 47 empower enforcement judges to impose travel bans on company managers, suspend powers of attorney related to assets, order disclosure and seizure of assets and future revenues, and notify credit agencies, among other measures, significantly increasing recovery prospects and deterring non-compliance. The cumulative effect of these reforms is reflected in the growth in foreign enforcement applications and in the speed with which enforcement orders are issued, often within weeks, supporting the Kingdom’s aspiration to be a pro-arbitration and predictable venue for cross-border commerce.
The Draft Arbitration Law brings additional clarity to arbitral enforcement. Article 64 sets out filing requirements for an enforcement order, including the award or certified copy, the arbitration agreement, and a certified Arabic translation where needed. Article 65 enumerates conditions for granting enforcement: expiry of the annulment filing window; non-contradiction with a final Saudi judgment or decision; and non-violation of Sharia or public policy, with severability permitting enforcement of compliant parts where feasible. Article 65(3) allows the court to suspend enforcement for up to sixty days to enable award-form corrections that eliminate enforcement obstacles without altering substance. Article 63 relating to res judicata for awards “regardless of the country of issuance” underscores the Kingdom’s adherence to New York Convention principles and complements specialized enforcement procedures.
Recent judgments demonstrate a supportive enforcement climate. The SCCA’s case law studies show consistently low annulment rates and disciplined and restrictive application of public policy. In sampled appeal court judgments between 2017 and 2023, motions to annul were predominantly rejected; successful annulments on grounds of violation of Shar’iah were rare and confined to express statutory limits. The Ministry of Justice data reported hundreds of domestic and foreign awards enforced in a single nine-month period, including awards rendered in Lebanon, Morocco, South Korea, Switzerland, the UAE, and the UK, with no precedents of refusal on public policy or Sharia grounds during that period. Appeal courts have further clarified that representation by foreign counsel in arbitration is not a valid annulment ground; parties retain freedom to select representatives before arbitral tribunals, consistent with Article 50 annulment constraints in the current law and the permissive stance reflected in the draft.
The Execution Courts’ travel bans, account freezes, seizure and auction of assets, and law enforcement assistance— also ensure practical effectiveness once an enforcement order is granted. Electronic notification systems and digitized filing platforms accelerate timelines, often moving from application to execution orders in weeks. Against this backdrop, the Draft Arbitration Law and Supreme Court oversight of enforcement orders enhance predictability while respecting essential public policy parameters.
Encouraging Institutional Arbitration under Licensed Rules
Saudi policy has moved to consolidate institutional quality around licensed centres, with the SCCA positioned as the principal forum for complex disputes. The Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration with the SCCA Court—established in 2023—administering appointments, challenges, jurisdictional objections, emergency measures, and award reviews under published internal rules that promote transparency. Caseload growth has been pronounced year-on-year, with sectoral breadth and diverse national participation, signalling international trust in the forum. Average award durations have been competitive, reflecting disciplined case management and digital infrastructure.
In addition, regulatory consolidation complements institutional governance. The Council of Ministers’ 2025 market-structuring decision has restricted the establishment of new centers, channelling disputes toward licensed and well-governed platforms affiliated with the Federation of Saudi Chambers and within special economic zones where appropriate. This mitigates fragmentation, raises quality baselines, and aligns administration with global standards. The judiciary’s engagement—through New York Convention sustained case law study—has reinforced shared understanding between courts and institutions on enforcement and annulment thresholds.
The Draft Arbitration Law dovetails with institutional practice. Articles 29 to 31’s interim measures regime integrates seamlessly with institutional emergency procedures. Article 21’s default constitution mechanics interface with institutional appointment processes, while Article 37’s joinder and Article 43’s consolidation provisions align with contemporary institutional rules designed to handle multi-contract and multi-party disputes in construction, energy, and commerce.
Article 36’s language flexibility and Article 35’s virtual hearing recognition reflect standard institutional capabilities. The net effect is a statutory environment that both honours party autonomy to select institutional rules and supplies court support and enforcement pathways consistent with institutional case administration.
Taken together, policy consolidation, SCCA governance reforms, and digital case management have created firm prompts for parties to opt for licensed institutional arbitration when structuring dispute resolution clauses for Saudi-related transactions.
Enhancing Ad Hoc Arbitration Proceedings in the Kingdom
The Draft Arbitration Law also strengthens ad hoc arbitration by supplying default rules and court support where party agreement is silent. Articles 32–36 allow tribunals to conduct proceedings in the manner they deem appropriate, determine admissibility and weight of evidence, and set language rules, while preserving parties’ agreement. Article 35 empowers tribunals to fix the place of arbitration and to hold virtual sessions and out-of-seat hearings for witness evidence, document inspection, and deliberations—enhancing flexibility without procedural insecurity. Article 46 provides for court assistance with witness summons, document production, and judicial commissions, while preserving tribunals’ independent powers. Tribunal powers over interim and precautionary measures (Articles 29–31) are coupled with court enforcement within defined timelines, ensuring that ad hoc tribunals can obtain practical relief swiftly.
For award-making, the draft law codifies requirements for form, content, signatures, costs allocation, and reasons (Articles 48–53), including recognition of partial, interim, and emergency awards (Article 49). It introduces pragmatic post‑award tools—interpretation (Article 56), correction of clerical and computational errors (Article 57), and additional awards for omitted claims (Article 58)—with all such determinations integrated into the original award’s legal effect (Article 59). Annulment and enforcement mechanisms are framed to avoid procedural traps and permit curing of formal defects (Articles 61(5), 65(3)), reducing risk in ad hoc settings. Together, these features reduce the friction costs often associated with ad hoc arbitrations, supplying structure where needed while maintaining party autonomy.
Case Law and Awards
Recent Saudi appellate and Supreme Court case law confirm disciplined support for arbitration alongside careful jurisdictional policing in court litigation. The Board of Grievances’ Decision No. 324/1433H recognized party autonomy in foreign forum selection and applied lis pendens to avoid parallel proceedings, staying Saudi litigation where a competent foreign court was seized under a valid forum clause. The Supreme Court’s Decision No. 431413 (05/03/1443H) later clarified that party autonomy cannot divest Saudi courts of jurisdiction in suits against Saudi-resident defendants, placing arbitration, rather than foreign court litigation, as the practical path to neutral fora where local jurisdiction is mandatory.
Commercial court practice has emphasized threshold resolution of preliminary pleas and streamlined case management, curbing duplicative claims and enforcing timelines. In arbitration-related matters, appeal courts have consistently denied attempts to revisit merits and have applied public policy narrowly, with annulment largely confined to the statutory grounds analogous to Article 61. Enforcement Courts have executed both domestic and foreign awards at scale, with digitized filings and swift orders, and have rejected representation-based annulment theories—confirming parties’ freedom to engage foreign counsel in arbitration.
These holdings sharpen strategy. Parties seeking application of foreign substantive law or neutral process should prioritize arbitration; those litigating in Saudi courts should anticipate Saudi substantive law and public policy backstops. In either mode, the enforcement posture is predictable, and the draft law’s further reduces risk around formal defects.
Government, Public Policy, and Shari’ah Considerations
Saudi arbitration remains aligned with Shari’ah and public order considerations, constraints that are explicit in the Arbitration Law and operationalized at enforcement. Article 2 frames the law’s application “without prejudice” to Shari’ah and international convention obligations, and enforcement judges must ensure awards do not violate public policy or contradict binding Saudi judgments. This balancing of modern arbitral techniques with foundational legal principles has matured into a predictable practice: courts confine review to statutory grounds and do not reopen the merits, while parties and tribunals bear the responsibility to structure claims, defenses, and remedies consistent with Shari’ah and public policy. For public bodies and projects, the regime’s clarity around annulment and enforcement, coupled with strong coercive powers against recalcitrant debtors, has reduced historical friction and supported efficient resolution of high-value disputes.
Annulment and Judicial Restraint: Article 50 in Practice
Article 50’s exclusive grounds for annulment have become key to Saudi arbitral finality. Courts have reiterated that any annulment petition must fit within the law, and that procedural characteristics outside the law’s architecture do not justify annulment. The Supreme Court’s articulation in case No. 41176982 confirms the narrowness of judicial review, the strict application of Article 50, the non-availability of merits reassessment, and the imperative that party-agreed procedures remain valid if they do not affect the award’s essential validity. Coupled with Article 54’s non-automatic stay, this has significantly reduced strategic annulment filings as a lever to defer payment, stabilizing enforcement outcomes and reinforcing the Kingdom’s reliability for commercial parties.
Conclusion
Saudi Arabia’s arbitration ecosystem has developed into an enforcement-friendly regime that integrates international best practice with the Kingdom’s legal fundamentals.
A clarified and modernized new Arbitration Law will reduce uncertainty, shorten resolution timelines, and improves the enforceability horizon for both domestic and foreign parties. By further articulating the courts’ restrained role and the decisive nature of enforcement orders, the law will encourage parties to honour awards voluntarily and deter tactical relitigation. For sectors central to Saudi Vision 2030—construction, infrastructure, energy, and technology—the combination of institutional infrastructure, ad hoc flexibility, and enforcement reliability lowers transaction costs, improves risk allocation, and enhances the attractiveness of Saudi legal seats for complex cross-border projects.
Judicial practice has also reinforced predictability, with low annulment rates and disciplined public policy review, while enforcement courts remain efficient and technologically integrated. Against this background, policy has moved to encourage rules‑based arbitration administered by licensed institutions, with the SCCA’s governance and digital infrastructure offering a credible, neutral platform. At the same time, the Draft Arbitration Law’s default procedures and court assistance meaningfully enhance ad hoc arbitration conducted in the Kingdom. Collectively, these developments position Saudi Arabia as an increasingly attractive seat and enforcement forum—one that balances international best practice with local legal principles to deliver certainty, speed, and trust.
Discover more insights into the latest developments in arbitration in 2025 from around the world now
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Zane Anani is a qualified New York attorney and knowledge management professional with a diverse range of experience, including developing and managing knowledge services at Al Tamimi & Company. Zane is a knowledge lawyer in the Dispute Resolution department. She supports ongoing disputes work and provides the latest insights on case law and legislative developments. Her focus is responding to lawyers’ research queries, developing and creating internal know-how. Zane also collaborates with lawyers on external legal publications. Zane has coding experience and has helped build Al Tamimi’s Knowledge Management system.
Muhammad El Haggan is a Senior Associate at the Dispute Resolution Group of Al Tamimi & Co’s Riyadh Office. Muhammad specializes in construction-related matters, including advising construction stakeholders throughout the full project lifecycle. He also advises and represents clients in disputes arising out of construction projects, whether in an arbitration or litigation context, including under the rules of the ICC, SCCA, DIAC, and the CRCICA. Muhammad is regularly appointed to act as arbitrator and adjudicator with respect to contracts arising out of construction projects.
*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.
