Saudi Arabia’s Arbitration Landscape: Key Insights from the SCCA's Analysis of 967 Arbitration-related Court Decisions

Earlier this month, as part of Saudi Arabia's ongoing legal transformation, the Saudi Centre for Commercial Arbitration (the SCCA) published a landmark study assessing the Kingdom’s arbitration framework against international standards (the Country Report). The study evaluates how closely the Saudi arbitration framework aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law (1985, as amended in 2006) by analysing judicial decisions across Saudi courts and comparing the current Saudi Arbitration Law (2012) with the pending Draft Saudi Arbitration Law (the Draft Arbitration Law).[1]

The Country Report analyses 967 arbitration-related decisions issued by Saudi Courts of Appeal between January 2023 and June 2025, where the seat was domestic and the Saudi Arbitration Law applied.[2] Combined with four previous SCCA studies, this cumulative dataset now spans over 3,300 judgments from 2017 to 2025[3] providing a strong basis for assessing judicial trends.

What the Numbers Say 

For international investors, the primary factor behind choosing an arbitral seat is the predictability and frequency of judicial intervention in arbitral awards. Out of the 967 judgments analysed, 194 involved applications to annul an award. 

The Courts of Appeal rejected 174 of these applications, granting just 12 full and eight partial annulments. This almost 90% rejection rate is consistent with the broader eight-year dataset, where 518 out of 565 annulment applications were rejected (91.7 %), demonstrating a judicial commitment to the finality of awards.

Importantly, grounds that historically concerned foreign investors (namely Sharia and public policy) were rarely invoked successfully. Over the eight-year period, only 13 awards were annulled on these grounds. In the latest dataset, Sharia was the basis for just one partial annulment, and public policy for only three. This reflects a strict judicial reading of Article 50 of the Saudi Arbitration Law (which mirrors Article 34 of the Model Law). Saudi courts consistently treat these statutory annulment grounds as exhaustive and refuse to review the merits or re-evaluate the facts of a dispute.

The Saudi Courts' Pro Arbitration Case Law

Saudi courts generally uphold the principle of competence-competence and the separability of arbitration clauses. For instance, when a respondent argued that an underlying contract had been superseded, the Court of Appeal held that the arbitration clause survived independently and that the tribunal must rule on its own jurisdiction under Article 20 of the Saudi Arbitration Law.[4] Consistently, Saudi courts have declined to determine such objections at the outset, holding that they must first be decided by the tribunal once constituted.[5] 

This restraint showcases the arbitration-friendly ethos underpinning the Saudi Arbitration Law. The SCCA report identified no instances where a court exceeded its statutory limits or reviewed the merits of an award.[6] 

The judiciary has also adopted pragmatic standards for service of process. Electronic notifications via SMS or WhatsApp are deemed valid if agreed by the parties and receipt is verified, shifting the burden of proving non-receipt to the addressee.[7] Where awards were annulled for improper service, courts did not challenge the validity of electronic service itself, but rather its technical execution (e.g., service to a phone number not registered on official government platforms).[8]

Furthermore, the courts strictly enforce statutory waiver provisions. In one case, where a party challenged an award rendered after the contractual time limit, the Court of Appeal dismissed the challenge because the party failed to make the relevant objection in the arbitration. The court properly treated this silence as an implicit waiver under Article 7 of the Saudi Arbitration Law (equivalent to Article 4 of the Model Law).[9] 

Drawing the Boundaries of Arbitration and What it Means for International Parties

While they are pro-arbitration, Saudi courts will intervene where a tribunal exceeds its statutory authority, breaches due process, or issues an award contrary to mandatory law, Sharia, or public policy.

The clearest example is non-arbitrability. Tax disputes and personal status matters cannot be resolved in arbitration. Consequently, Courts of Appeal have partially annulled awards where tribunals ruled on tax issues, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Dispute and Violation Resolution Committees.[10]

Similarly, in the personal status context, the Court of Appeal annulled an award concerning the administration of trusts and wills, ruling that such matters require judicial authority.[11] 

Public policy challenges focus primarily on violations of mandatory statutory frameworks. For example, courts have annulled awards where tribunals retroactively applied the Civil Transactions Law contrary to its transitional provisions or treated unregistered leases as valid despite mandatory Ejar platform registration requirements.[12] The most commercially significant application of public policy remains the restriction on interest (Riba) at the enforcement stage. The Court of Appeal enforced the principal components of an award (including rescission and outstanding rent) but severed and refused to enforce the delay penalty on the basis that it constituted prohibited interest under Saudi public policy.[13] To mitigate this risk, parties should avoid drafting late-payment mechanisms as debt accretion and instead structure remedies as liquidated damages directly tied to actual and quantifiable harm.

The Draft Saudi Arbitration Law

The pending Draft Saudi Arbitration Law represents the next phase of this evolution, aimed at softening formal requirements, accelerating process, and further aligning domestic practice with international standards.[14] 

Key proposed reforms include Article 20(1), which removes the requirement for a sole arbitrator or tribunal chair to hold a law or Sharia degree.[15] Additionally, Article 27 explicitly codifies arbitrator immunity, excluding only cases of fraud or gross professional misconduct.[16]

The Draft Arbitration Law modernises proceedings by allowing electronic notification, remote hearings, and electronic signatures on awards, including awards signed outside the Kingdom but deemed rendered at the seat.[17] 

Procedurally, the Draft Arbitration Law introduces emergency arbitrator mechanisms, expands interim measures, and codifies provisions on joinder and consolidation.[18] It also abolishes the default 12-month statutory time limit for rendering awards and allows courts to suspend annulment proceedings for up to 60 days to allow tribunals to cure curable defects, mirroring Article 34(4) of the Model Law.[19]

Furthermore, the Draft Arbitration Law eliminates the requirement to deposit the award with the court, requiring an Arabic translation only upon enforcement. It codifies the res judicata effect of foreign and domestic awards and establishes the Supreme Court as the competent authority to hear appeals against enforcement decisions.[20]

Conclusion

The SCCA’s comprehensive data demonstrates that Saudi Arabia’s arbitration framework is transitioning into a deep integration with global standards. With predictable judicial enforcement, clearly defined statutory boundaries, and the anticipated enforcement of the Draft Arbitration Law, the Kingdom continues to solidify its position as a reliable, modern forum for resolving complex international commercial disputes.