Saudi Arabia: Arbitration in Judicial Trends and Legislative Analysis

In brief

On 1 July 2026, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) released its latest country report on arbitration in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, providing a comprehensive and data-driven analysis of the Saudi arbitration framework and its alignment with international standards.

The report, prepared as part of Saudi Arabia’s contribution to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Digest of Case Law on the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, examines both judicial practice and legislative developments. It is based on (i) an analysis of 967 arbitration-related court decisions issued by the Courts of Appeal between January 2023 and June 2025 (in all cases the applicable law being Saudi Arbitration law and the Seat of Arbitration within the Kingdom), and (ii) a textual comparison of the Saudi Arbitration Law (2012), the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the Draft Saudi Arbitration Law currently under consideration (Draft Law).

Key takeaways

• The report confirms that Saudi courts consistently adopt an arbitration-supportive approach, with judicial involvement confined to the limited circumstances expressly provided by law.
• Particular emphasis was placed on data analysis concerning the annulment of arbitral awards, which remains a central concern for clients operating in Saudi Arabia. The data confirms that public policy challenges are rare and Sharia-based annulment arguments are exceptionally limited in practice. When considered alongside the four prior SCCA studies covering the period 2017–2023, the cumulative dataset exceeds 3,300 judgments, with 91.7% of annulment applications rejected, 8.3% of annulment requests accepted (fully or partially) and only 2.3% of annulments based on Sharia or public policy grounds, further underscoring the consistency and predictability of the Saudi courts' approach.
• The report’s legislative analysis includes a direct textual comparison of the relevant provisions of the Model Law with their corresponding provisions in the Saudi Arbitration Law and the Draft Law. The analysis supports that Saudi Arbitration Law already reflects international standards, while incorporating certain adaptations that reflect specific features of the Kingdom’s regulatory framework.
• The Draft Law signals further harmonisation by reducing formalities, and introducing several reforms and contemporary procedural concepts, including emergency arbitrators, and interim and partial awards.
• Taken together, the report reinforces that Saudi Arabia aligns with all three criteria identified by the International Bar Association for a stable arbitral seat: membership of the New York Convention, an arbitration-supportive legal framework, and a judiciary with a demonstrated record of arbitration-friendly decisions.
    

In depth

Part I: Judicial practice in Saudi Arabia (2023–2025)

Limited judicial intervention and strong support for arbitration

The judicial analysis adopted a comparative methodology based on the Model Law and its implementation in jurisdictions that have adopted it, mapping how Saudi courts have addressed the issues identified therein. The report confirms that Saudi courts adopt a consistently arbitration-supportive approach, with judicial involvement confined to the limited circumstances expressly provided by law. In practice, this is reflected in well-established principles including competence-competence, separability, party autonomy, limited judicial review (meaning that courts do not re-examine the merits or reassess the evidence), and a narrow approach to non-arbitrability.

The report also highlights a notable development in relation to electronic notifications: Saudi courts have affirmed the validity of notifications made via text, including WhatsApp, SMS and email, with the burden of proving non-receipt falling on the recipient. This approach also aligns with the Draft Law, which expressly recognises the validity of electronic communications.

Annulment

The report places particular emphasis on the annulment of arbitral awards, which remains a central concern for clients operating in Saudi Arabia. Based on the dataset of 967 arbitration-related judgments issued between January 2023 and June 2025, the examination produced the following results:

• 194 annulment applications were filed (20.1% of all judgments)
• 174 annulment applications were rejected (89.7% of the total annulment applications)
• 20 granted (10.3%) including 12 full annulments and eight partial annulments
• One annulment granted on the basis of a violation of Sharia (however the Court also relied on public policy and Article 50(1)(f) of the Saudi Arbitration Law)

Rejection of annulment applications were based on procedural grounds such as failure to comply with statutory time limits or on the merits i.e., where none of the exhaustive grounds under Article 50 of the Saudi Arbitration Law were established. Courts consistently confirmed that the grounds for annulment are exclusive and not subject to expansion or analogy.

In the cases where annulment applications were granted in full or in part, the common grounds relied upon by the courts can be summarised as follows:

• Absence of a valid arbitration agreement (Article 50(1)(a));
• Improper notification and denial of the right to present a defence (Article 50(1)(c));
• Issuance of an award by an improperly constituted arbitral tribunal, e.g., contrary to the parties’ agreement (Article 50(1)(e));
• Violation of fundamental procedural rules affecting the award (Article 50(1)(g));
• Non-arbitrability of the subject matter, e.g., disputes related to VAT or personal status matters (Article 50(2));
• Violation of public policy - where the award contains provisions contrary to mandatory rules or public policy, such as recognition of an unregistered lease agreement in violation of a Council of Ministers decision (Article 50(2));
• Violation of Sharia principles - where the award contains provisions contrary to applicable Sharia principles, e.g., an award on arbitration fees found to be in violation of Sharia and public policy, as well as affected by procedural irregularities (Article 50(2)).

The data confirms that public policy challenges are rare and Sharia-based annulment arguments are exceptionally limited in practice. When considered alongside the four prior SCCA studies covering the period 2017–2023, the cumulative dataset exceeds 3,300 judgments, with 91.7% of annulment applications rejected, 8.3% of annulment requests accepted (fully or partially) and only 2.3% of annulments was based on Sharia or public policy grounds, further underscoring the consistency and predictability of the Saudi courts' approach.

Part II: Legislative framework and reform trajectory

The report’s legislative analysis includes a direct textual comparison of the relevant provisions of the Model Law with their corresponding provisions in the Saudi Arbitration Law and the Draft Law. The analysis confirms that the Saudi Arbitration Law already reflects internationally recognised arbitration standards, including broad recognition of party autonomy, a limited and supportive role for the courts, and a unified framework applicable to both domestic and international arbitration, while incorporating certain adaptations that reflect specific features of the Kingdom’s regulatory framework.

At the same time, the Draft Law signals a clear legislative trajectory toward greater harmonisation with international standards, reducing formalities, accelerating procedures, and introducing contemporary procedural concepts, including emergency arbitrators, and interim and partial awards.

Key proposed reforms under the Draft Arbitration Law

The Draft Law will introduce several reforms of direct relevance to arbitration users, including:

• Enhanced arbitrator eligibility: The requirement in the current law that a sole arbitrator or chair of the arbitral tribunal hold a degree in Sharia or law will be removed, which will allow greater flexibility to appoint technical experts or specialists from non-legal backgrounds.
• Digitalisation and procedural modernisation: Express recognition of electronic communications and notifications, including email and mobile phone. Awards will also be permitted to be signed electronically and be deemed rendered at the seat of arbitration, even if signed outside of the Kingdom.
• Interim measures: Arbitral tribunals will be granted expanded authority to order measures to preserve the status quo, take or refrain from taking action to prevent harm or prejudice and safeguard assets or evidence. In the case of non-compliance, recourse will be able to be made to the competent court, which will be required to issue its decision within 15 days.
• Emergency arbitrators: The Draft Law expressly defines and recognises the role of emergency arbitrators, and will thereby enable parties to seek urgent interim relief before the final arbitral award is rendered.
• Joinder, intervention and consolidation: The Draft Law contemplates the joinder of or intervention by a third party and the consolidation of related arbitrations, addressing multi-party scenarios that are increasingly common in complex commercial disputes.
• Annulment and streamlined enforcement: In annulment proceedings, courts will have the ability to stay the proceedings for up to 60 days to allow the arbitral tribunal to remedy defects relating to the form of the award. The requirement for awards to be deposited with the competent court, together with translation will be removed.

These reforms are designed to increase efficiency, flexibility and user-friendliness, while enhancing Saudi Arabia’s competitiveness as a seat.

A maturing arbitration jurisdiction

For clients, this report signals that Saudi Arabia is continuing to confirm its position as a credible and competitive arbitration seat, combining a modernising legal framework with a judiciary that demonstrates increasingly consistent support for arbitration.

Clients should note however that the Draft Law remains under legislative review and has not yet entered into force; the current Saudi Arbitration Law (2012) continues to govern proceedings. Nonetheless, the direction of reform is clear. Taken together, the report reinforces that Saudi Arabia aligns with all three criteria identified by the International Bar Association for a stable arbitral seat: membership of the New York Convention, an arbitration-supportive legal framework, and a judiciary with a demonstrated record of arbitration-friendly decisions.