Saudi arbitration in focus: SCCA report highlights court support and legislative modernisation

Introduction

On 1 July 2026, the Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) released its June 2026 country report, Arbitration in Saudi Arabia: Case Law and Legislative Analysis in Light of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Saudi Arbitration Framework (the Report). The Report examines the extent to which Saudi Arabia's arbitration framework aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the Model Law), through both a judicial and a legislative lens. On the judicial side, the Report analyses Saudi court decisions and arbitral practice in the Kingdom. On the legislative side, it compares the Model Law with the current Saudi Arbitration Law, enacted by Royal Decree No. M/34 dated 24/05/1433H (corresponding to 16 April 2012) (the Arbitration Law), and the Draft Saudi Arbitration Law published by the National Competitiveness Centre for public consultation, which, if enacted, would replace the current Arbitration Law (the Draft New Law).

The Report is structured in two main parts. The first part analyses arbitration-related judicial rulings rendered by the Saudi Courts of Appeal between January 2023 and June 2025, based on a dataset of 967 judicial decisions in which the seat of arbitration was Saudi Arabia and the applicable law was the Arbitration Law, and includes a brief overview of three SCCA-administered arbitral awards. The second part provides a comparative analysis of the Model Law, the current Arbitration Law and the Draft New Law to assess whether, and to what extent, the Arbitration Law and the Draft New Law align with the Model Law.

The Report was prepared in response to an invitation from the Board of Editors for the UNCITRAL Digest Revision and forms part of Saudi Arabia’s contribution to the forthcoming edition of the UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. It is therefore significant not only as a domestic review of Saudi arbitration practice, but also as a contribution to the wider international arbitration practice.

The Report provides useful insight into how Saudi courts are applying the Arbitration Law in practice, including the extent to which judicial practice aligns with internationally recognised arbitration standards. Its detailed analysis of arbitration-related case law is particularly valuable for practitioners, as it brings together judicial guidance on important questions that commonly arise in Saudi-seated arbitrations. It is also significant because it places the development of arbitration in Saudi Arabia within the broader Vision 2030 reform agenda, including legislative modernisation, judicial development, institutional support and digitalisation.

Key Themes from the Case Law Analysis

The first part of the Report offers a practical guide to the application of the Arbitration Law by the Saudi courts. Drawing on a comprehensive review of Saudi case law, it highlights a number of recurring issues that are likely to be relevant for parties drafting arbitration agreements, conducting Saudi-seated arbitrations or seeking to set aside or enforce arbitral awards in the Kingdom. Below is a snapshot of some of the key questions addressed in the Report, together with the answers emerging from the case law analysed. Readers are nonetheless encouraged to review the Report for more thorough insight.

A. Extension of arbitration clauses across related contracts

The case law analysed in the Report suggests that, as a general rule, Saudi courts will not extend an arbitration agreement beyond the scope of the parties’ clear written consent. This is particularly so where the agreement to arbitrate is limited to an existing dispute: Saudi courts have refused to treat such an agreement as extending to later or separate disputes absent clear and express written consent.¹ Similarly, in a 2024 Al-Qassim decision, the court annulled an award rendered against the owner of a company following the company's dissolution, finding that the arbitration clause was limited to the contracting parties and could not be extended to the owner by reason of the company's separate legal personality.²

The Report nevertheless indicates that Saudi courts may recognise limited forms of implicit consent where the relevant consent is anchored in a legally binding instrument. In a 2024 Riyadh decision, the court upheld the applicability of an arbitration clause contained in the articles of association governing a real estate development.³ The court reasoned that the claimant's ownership of the relevant unit entailed acceptance of the owners' association articles, including the express arbitration clause providing for disputes to be administered by the Saudi Real Estate Arbitration Centre. On that basis, the arbitration clause was binding without the need for a separate arbitration agreement. This reasoning appears specific to the context of articles of association, and it is not clear that the same approach would apply to other types of instruments from which consent could be inferred.

The practical implication is that parties entering into a suite of related agreements should not assume that an arbitration agreement contained in one contract will automatically extend to disputes arising under another. If the parties intend all disputes arising out of their related contractual arrangements to be resolved through a single arbitration, they should make sure to include their express consent to that effect. Careful drafting at the outset can minimise the risk of jurisdictional challenges and parallel proceedings before different forums.

B. Competence-competence

The case law analysed in the Report confirms that Saudi courts consistently defer jurisdictional objections to arbitral tribunals in accordance with the competence-competence principle.

The Report refers to a 2023 Eastern Province decision in which the court held that the arbitral tribunal was competent to determine objections relating to the existence, validity and scope of the arbitration agreement in accordance with Article 20 of the Arbitration Law, and accordingly referred the respondent's jurisdictional challenge to the arbitral tribunal.⁴ Similarly, in a 2023 Makkah decision, the court declined to examine a plea that the arbitration agreement was invalid, holding instead that the issue should first be determined by the arbitral tribunal once constituted.⁵

These decisions reinforce the Saudi courts' pro-arbitration approach and their willingness to respect the arbitral tribunal's primary role in determining its own jurisdiction. For arbitration practitioners, this provides greater certainty that jurisdictional objections will generally not be used to delay or derail arbitral proceedings through parallel court challenges. It also confirms that Saudi judicial practice is closely aligned with internationally recognised arbitration principles on this point.

C. Separability of the arbitration clause

The Report identifies a clear and consistent approach to separability. Saudi courts have consistently held that an arbitration clause constitutes an independent agreement that survives the invalidity, rescission, or termination of the underlying contract, provided that the arbitration clause itself is not defective.⁶

This approach preserves the parties' chosen dispute resolution mechanism and ensures that questions concerning the validity or termination of the underlying contract will ordinarily remain for the arbitral tribunal to determine.

D. Annulment proceedings: limited judicial review

The Report's analysis of annulment applications provides important insight into the Saudi courts' approach to arbitral awards. During the period under review, 194 of the 967 judgments analysed involved applications to annul arbitral awards, representing 20.1% of the dataset. Of those applications, 174 were dismissed, resulting in an overall rejection rate of 89.7%. The courts annulled arbitral awards, either wholly or partially, in only 20 cases (10.3% of annulment applications), comprising 12 cases of full annulment and 8 cases of partial annulment. Notably, only one case involved annulment on the basis of a violation of the tenets of Sharia, while only three cases were annulled on public policy grounds.

These figures reflect the courts' consistent interpretation of Article 50 of the Arbitration Law, which limits annulment to the exhaustive statutory grounds set out in that provision. The Report demonstrates that Saudi courts do not treat annulment proceedings as an opportunity to revisit the merits of the dispute or to review the tribunal's interpretation or application of the law, assessment of the evidence, findings of fact or procedural determinations. Rather, judicial review is confined to determining whether one of the statutory grounds for annulment has been established. Unless such a ground exists, alleged errors of law, fact or procedure are not sufficient to justify setting aside an arbitral award.

The Report illustrates this approach by reference to a 2025 decision of the Al-Qassim Court, in which the court rejected a series of challenges to an arbitral award concerning the constitution of the tribunal, the validity of the arbitration proceedings and the tribunal's conduct of the arbitration. The court found either that the alleged irregularities had not been established or that they fell outside the exhaustive grounds for annulment under Article 50. It also reaffirmed that objections not raised during the arbitration may be treated as waived under Article 7 of the Arbitration Law.⁷

Taken together, the statistical analysis and the case law demonstrate that Saudi courts apply Article 50 narrowly and consistently resist attempts to use annulment proceedings as a disguised appeal on the merits. This approach enhances the finality of arbitral awards and strengthens Saudi Arabia's attractiveness as a seat of arbitration by reducing the risk of prolonged post-award litigation.

E. Time limits for awards

The Report also considers whether Saudi courts have annulled arbitral awards where the arbitration exceeded the time limit agreed by the parties, prescribed by the applicable rules or set out in the Arbitration Law. The case law suggests that there is no automatic rule. Rather, Saudi courts adopt a fact-specific approach, focusing on whether the tribunal's mandate had validly expired and whether the parties had consented to, or waived any objection to, the continuation of the proceedings.

The Report refers to two decisions illustrating this approach. In a 2024 Al-Qassim decision, the court refused to annul the award because the parties had not objected to the continuation of the arbitration during the proceedings, treating their silence as a waiver under Article 7 of the Arbitration Law.⁸ By contrast, in a 2023 Riyadh decision, the court annulled the award where the tribunal had exceeded the statutory time limit without a valid extension, and there was no evidence that the parties had consented to, or waived any objection to, the continuation of the proceedings.⁹

F. Tribunal exceeding its mandate

The Report also examines whether Saudi courts have annulled arbitral awards where the tribunal decided matters not submitted to arbitration, exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement, or failed to exercise the authority conferred on it under that agreement.

The case law suggests that Saudi courts will intervene where the tribunal decides issues that fall outside the parties’ submission to arbitration: for instance, in a 2025 Jeddah decision, the claimant had sought termination of a tripartite lease agreement, but the tribunal declared the contract null and void and ordered the parties to be restored to their pre-contractual position. The court partially annulled the award relating to nullity, finding that nullity had not been requested by the parties and was not a necessary legal consequence of rejecting the termination claim.¹⁰ In a 2024 Makkah decision, the court also partially annulled an award where the tribunal decided disputes arising under contracts that were not covered by the arbitration agreement before it.¹¹

The Report also contrasts two decisions concerning awards of attorney fees. In a 2025 Riyadh decision, the court partially annulled an award of attorney fees on the basis that the issue fell outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction in accordance with Article 28(5) of the Implementing Regulation of the Code of Law Practice.¹² However, in a 2024 Eastern Province decision, the court upheld an award of attorney fees where the claim arose directly out of the dispute before the tribunal and was characterised as an ancillary request falling within the tribunal’s jurisdiction.¹³

These decisions confirm that Saudi courts take the limits of an arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction seriously and will intervene where a tribunal decides matters falling outside the parties' submission to arbitration. At the same time, the decisions on attorney fees demonstrate that the courts adopt a practical, case-specific approach when determining the scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction, assessing whether a particular claim is sufficiently connected to the dispute already before the tribunal rather than treating entire categories of claims as automatically falling inside or outside its jurisdiction. Equally significant is the courts' willingness to order partial, rather than total, annulment where only part of an award exceeds the tribunal's mandate. This reflects an effort to respect both the parties' agreement to arbitrate and the limits they chose to place on the tribunal's jurisdiction.

G. Violation of public policy and Sharia

The Report also examines the extent to which Saudi courts rely on public policy and Sharia grounds to annul arbitral awards. The case law suggests that these grounds are applied narrowly and remain exceptional. Intervention is generally confined to cases where an arbitral award conflicts with mandatory statutory provisions or fundamental principles of Sharia and public policy, rather than involving a reconsideration of the merits of the dispute.

In a 2025 Jeddah decision, the court annulled an award where the tribunal had applied statutory limitation rules under the Law of Civil Transactions to a matter that had commenced before that law entered into force, in violation of the royal decree promulgating the law.¹⁴ In a 2023 Riyadh decision, the court annulled an award that treated an unregistered lease agreement as valid, despite mandatory rules requiring registration on the Ejar platform as a condition of validity.¹⁵ In a 2024 Riyadh decision, the court partially annulled an award where the tribunal had awarded arbitration fees to itself without a party request after the proceedings had concluded. The court found that the relevant orders violated the arbitration agreement, exceeded the tribunal's mandate, lacked adequate reasoning as to the fees or why they were owed, and did not comply with the requirements governing arbitrators' fees under Article 24 of the Arbitration Law. On that basis, it treated those parts of the award as contrary to Sharia and public policy.¹⁶

The case law demonstrates that public policy and Sharia remain important limits that may justify the annulment of an arbitral award. However, they do not operate as a general gateway to merits review. Rather, Saudi courts appear to intervene only where an award conflicts with mandatory rules or fundamental principles, while otherwise preserving the finality of arbitral awards.

H. Recognition and enforcement

The Report also considers the extent to which Saudi courts will refuse to enforce arbitral awards on grounds of public policy or non-compliance with Sharia. The case law suggests that, while Saudi courts are prepared to intervene where an award conflicts with mandatory principles of Sharia or public policy, they adopt a measured approach and limit their intervention to the offending part of the award where possible.

The Report refers to a 2025 Jeddah decision in which the court enforced an arbitral award arising out of a lease dispute, save for the portion awarding a delay penalty. The court held that the delay penalty constituted riba (interest) prohibited under Sharia and therefore refused to enforce that part of the award, while permitting enforcement of the remaining parts.¹⁷

This decision demonstrates that Saudi courts seek to preserve arbitral awards to the greatest extent possible, intervening only where necessary to ensure compliance with mandatory principles of Sharia and public policy.

The Draft New Law: Further Alignment with International Best Practice

Part II of the Report provides a legislative comparison of the Model Law, the Arbitration Law and the Draft New Law, identifying areas of convergence and divergence between the three instruments. Against that background, the following sections consider selected key updates introduced by the Draft New Law, as discussed in the Report, and assess how those updates compare with the position under the current Arbitration Law and the Model Law.

A. Definitions of "Arbitral Tribunal" and "Award"

A notable development in the Draft New Law is the introduction of an express statutory definition of the "Arbitral Tribunal". While the Model Law defines an arbitral tribunal as either a sole arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators, the Draft New Law expands this definition to include an emergency arbitrator appointed in accordance with the arbitration rules agreed by the parties. Although the Draft New Law does not contain a dedicated regime governing emergency arbitration, the express inclusion of emergency arbitrators within the definition of "Arbitral Tribunal" suggests that their decisions would fall within the same statutory framework applicable to arbitral awards.

The Draft New Law also introduces an express statutory definition of an "Award", which is absent from both the Model Law and the current Arbitration Law. It defines an award as a decision of the arbitral tribunal on the substance of the dispute or granting an interim measure, and expressly includes interim and partial awards while excluding procedural orders related to the administration of the case.

This definition provides greater certainty as to the scope of decisions that qualify as arbitral awards under the Draft New Law. In particular, by expressly including interim and partial awards, the Draft New Law clarifies that these decisions fall within the statutory enforcement regime before the Saudi courts.

B. Form of written arbitration agreements

The Draft New Law updates the rules governing the form of arbitration agreements while preserving the existing requirement that such agreements be in writing, with non-compliance rendering the agreement null and void. Although this fundamental requirement remains unchanged from the Arbitration Law, the Draft New Law adopts a more functional approach to what constitutes a written arbitration agreement, bringing Saudi law closer to the Model Law.

Rather than focusing on the form in which an arbitration agreement is concluded, the Draft New Law provides that the writing requirement is satisfied whenever the content of the agreement is recorded in any form, including where the agreement was concluded orally or by conduct. It also expressly recognises electronic communications, incorporation by reference and, for the first time, exchanges of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of the arbitration agreement is not denied as satisfying the writing requirement. Collectively, these amendments align the Draft New Law more closely with international standards while preserving the evidentiary safeguards that characterise the Saudi arbitration framework.

C. Constitution of the arbitral tribunal

Number of arbitrators

The Draft New Law also revises the rules governing the composition of the arbitral tribunal. While retaining the existing requirement that the tribunal comprise an odd number of arbitrators, it adopts a more flexible approach to the consequences of non-compliance, bringing the Saudi framework closer to the pragmatism of the Model Law.

Under the current Arbitration Law, where an arbitration tribunal is composed of an even number of arbitrators, the arbitration is void. By contrast, the Draft New Law retains the requirement that the tribunal comprise an odd number of arbitrators but introduces a mechanism to correct this defect by appointing an additional arbitrator, rather than rendering the arbitration agreement void.

These changes reduce the risk of arbitration agreements being invalidated on purely formal grounds while preserving the safeguard against deadlock within the tribunal.

The Draft New Law also departs from the Model Law by providing that, in the absence of party agreement, the tribunal will consist of a sole arbitrator rather than three arbitrators.

Conditions of arbitrator appointment

The Draft New Law modernises the eligibility requirements for arbitrators by moving closer to the flexible approach adopted in the Model Law, which leaves the determination of arbitrator qualifications largely to party agreement and imposes only minimal mandatory criteria.

The Draft New Law retains the requirement that arbitrators possess full legal capacity and confirms that nationality alone cannot preclude a person from acting as an arbitrator, while removing the current requirement that a sole or presiding arbitrator hold a university degree in Sharia or law.

The Draft New Law also replaces the broad requirement that arbitrators be of good conduct and reputation with a more objective criterion, requiring only that they have not been deprived of their civil rights as a result of a criminal conviction. These changes expand party autonomy and facilitate the appointment of specialist and international arbitrators, while preserving appropriate minimum eligibility requirements.

D. Competence-competence

The Draft New Law preserves the principle of competence-competence, under which an arbitral tribunal has the authority to determine its own jurisdiction, including any objections with respect to the non-existence, termination, or invalidity of the arbitration agreement, or the non-applicability of the arbitration agreement to the subject matter of the dispute. It also maintains the principle of separability, confirming that the arbitration clause remains independent of the underlying contract.

The main development concerns judicial review of preliminary jurisdictional decisions. Under the current Arbitration Law, a tribunal's decision rejecting a jurisdictional objection may only be challenged at the annulment stage following the final award. By contrast, the Draft New Law introduces a mechanism allowing parties to seek judicial review of such preliminary decisions within 30 days, while expressly providing that the arbitration will continue pending that review. In doing so, the Draft New Law moves closer to the Model Law by introducing limited early judicial oversight without undermining the efficiency and autonomy of the arbitral process.

E. Interim measures

The Draft New Law significantly expands the framework governing interim measures, bringing it much closer to the comprehensive regime set out in the Model Law. While the current Arbitration Law adopts a broadly similar approach, it regulates interim measures in less detail. It divides authority between the courts, which may order interim or precautionary measures before and during the arbitration, and arbitral tribunals, which may grant such measures where the parties have conferred that power. Unlike the Model Law, however, it does not define the types of interim measures available or the conditions governing their grant, and enforcement of tribunal-ordered measures remains dependent on court intervention.

By contrast, the Draft New Law introduces a detailed framework identifying the categories of interim measures that may be ordered, the substantive conditions for granting such relief, and the procedures governing their disclosure, modification, termination and enforcement. It also establishes an expedited judicial mechanism for enforcing tribunal-ordered interim measures while limiting the grounds on which enforcement may be refused. These reforms significantly strengthen the effectiveness of interim relief in arbitration and align the Saudi framework more closely with the Model Law. 

F. Technological advances: electronic notices, virtual hearings and electronic signatures

The Draft New Law also introduces a number of technology-focused updates that modernise the procedural framework for arbitration in the Kingdom. These reforms are mainly reflected in the rules on electronic notifications, virtual meetings and hearings, and electronic signatures for arbitral awards. 

First, the Draft New Law develops the rules on receipt of written communications by expressly recognising electronic and mobile notifications. It expands the concept of a “mailing address” to include an email address previously used by the parties in their dealings or previously communicated by one party to the other. Where delivery by the primary methods is not possible after reasonable inquiries, the Draft New Law allows notice to be considered received if sent by registered mail to the last known place of business, habitual residence or known mailing address or, by electronic means to the recipient’s mobile phone or email address. It also introduces a clearer rule for when email notice is considered received, namely the date shown in the email data as the sending date, provided there is no indication of a transmission error. This approach brings the Draft New Law closer to the Model Law’s functional treatment of written communications while adapting that framework to contemporary communication practices.

Second, the Draft New Law recognises the use of technology in the conduct of meetings and hearings. The Draft New Law explicitly provides that the tribunal may hold virtual meetings using modern technology. In relation to hearings, Article 41 of the Draft New Law provides that hearings may be held in person, remotely by video conference, or by other suitable means. The Report characterises this as a practical extension of the Model Law’s principle of procedural flexibility, adapting the arbitration framework to contemporary technological practices.

Third, the Draft New Law modernises the formal rules on arbitral awards by recognising electronic signatures. Article 52 provides that an award is considered rendered at the place of arbitration even if it was signed elsewhere or electronically, unless the parties agree otherwise. The Report describes these changes as part of the Draft New Law’s movement towards greater alignment with the Model Law while preserving certain domestic features and incorporating developments reflecting contemporary arbitral practice.

Conclusion

The Report provides useful guidance on how Saudi courts are applying the Arbitration Law in practice, including their approach to jurisdiction, annulment, enforcement, public policy and Sharia. It also places those developments in a broader legislative context by assessing the Saudi framework against the Model Law, showing how the Draft New Law would further modernise the Saudi arbitration framework and bring it closer to international best practice. Taken together, the Report reflects the Kingdom’s continued efforts to strengthen Saudi Arabia’s position as an arbitration-friendly jurisdiction while preserving key domestic safeguards.

For guidance on drafting arbitration agreements, conducting Saudi-seated arbitrations or navigating enforcement and annulment proceedings in the Kingdom, please contact our Dispute Resolution team.

Other Authors: Cynthia Abi Chahine, Associate