Saudi Arabia’s arbitration framework is entering a new phase. The Country Report of the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (“SCCA”), published in July 2026 (“Report”), analyses 967 Court of Appeal decisions issued between January 2023 and June 2025 and compares the Saudi Arbitration Law with the UNCITRAL Model Law and the proposed Draft Saudi Arbitration Law (“Draft Law”).[1]
The Report’s main conclusion is clear: Saudi courts generally respect arbitral jurisdiction, party autonomy and the finality of awards, while intervening where fundamental procedural or mandatory legal requirements are breached.
Saudi Courts Apply Limited Judicial Review
An important finding concerns the setting aside of arbitral awards.
Of the 967 decisions reviewed, 194 concerned applications to annul an award. Saudi courts rejected 174 applications, producing an annulment-application rejection rate of 89.7%. Only 20 applications succeeded: 12 awards were annulled in full and eight only in part.[2]
These figures do not mean that 10.3% of all Saudi arbitral awards were annulled. They show that 10.3% of the 194 annulment applications examined were successful.
The decisions also confirm that Article 50 of the Saudi Arbitration Law contains exhaustive grounds for annulment. Courts generally will not reconsider the merits, reassess evidence or replace a tribunal’s interpretation of the applicable law with their own.[3]
When the Report’s findings are combined with earlier SCCA studies, more than 3,300 Saudi decisions issued between 2017 and 2025 have been analysed. Among 565 annulment applications, 518 (or 91.7%) were rejected.[4]
For businesses considering arbitration in Saudi Arabia, these statistics provide evidence that annulment proceedings do not ordinarily operate as a second appeal on the merits.
Tribunals Decide Their Own Jurisdiction
Saudi courts consistently recognise competence-competence.
This includes objections concerning the existence, validity and scope of an arbitration agreement. Courts also recognise separability, i.e., the legal independence of an arbitration clause from the contract containing it. As a result, the invalidity, termination or rescission of the underlying contract does not automatically invalidate the arbitration clause.[5]
This approach limits premature court interference and allows the tribunal to address jurisdictional objections in the first instance.
Party Autonomy Is Respected but Not Unlimited
The Report also confirms judicial support for party autonomy, i.e., the parties’ freedom, within mandatory law, to determine how their arbitration will be conducted.
Saudi courts generally uphold agreed procedures for appointing arbitrators and conducting proceedings. They also recognise the binding effect of institutional arbitration rules selected by the parties.[6]
In one case involving an SCCA-administered arbitration, the court declined to reconsider an arbitrator challenge already determined by the SCCA Court under the parties’ agreed rules.[7]
Judicial intervention may nevertheless occur where an appointment mechanism compromises equality or impartiality. Courts have intervened where one party obtained excessive control over the tribunal’s constitution or where the tribunal’s composition was altered without another party’s knowledge.
The current Saudi Arbitration Law also requires an arbitral tribunal to consist of an odd number of arbitrators. Failure to satisfy this requirement may invalidate the arbitration.[8]
Electronic Notice Is Increasingly Accepted
Saudi courts have adopted a practical approach to electronic communications.
The decisions reviewed recognise notices sent through designated email addresses, text messages and similar applications. Where delivery to an agreed electronic address is established, the recipient may bear the burden of proving that the communication was not received.[9]
However, reliability remains essential. The Report discusses an annulment resulting from service through a WhatsApp number that was not the party’s officially registered number.[10]
Parties should therefore identify authorised email addresses and mobile numbers in their arbitration agreements, terms of reference or procedural orders. They should also preserve delivery confirmations and establish a clear procedure for changing contact information.
Due Process Remains a Firm Boundary
Judicial support for arbitration does not excuse procedural unfairness.
In a 2024 Riyadh case, an award was annulled because the respondent did not receive the claimant’s submissions and evidence and was not properly informed about expert-related steps in the proceedings. The court concluded that the respondent had not received a meaningful opportunity to present its case.[11]
In another case, an award was annulled because one member of a three-person tribunal did not participate in the tribunal’s substantive deliberations. The court treated the defect as affecting the lawful constitution and decision-making process of the tribunal.[12]
These decisions illustrate the distinction between merits review and procedural supervision. Saudi courts generally will not reconsider whether a tribunal reached the correct substantive result, but they may intervene where the procedure was fundamentally unfair.
Public Policy and Sharia Objections Remain Uncommon
Public policy, i.e., the forum’s fundamental mandatory legal principles, and Sharia, i.e., the principles of Islamic law applied within the Saudi legal order, remain relevant to arbitration in Saudi Arabia. However, the Report suggests that successful challenges on these grounds are relatively rare.
Only three of the 194 annulment applications were granted on public-policy grounds. One case involved partial annulment based on Sharia, public policy and an additional statutory ground. Because the categories overlap, they should not be added together as separate cases.[13]
The reported decisions show that public-policy concerns tend to arise where an award applies legislation retroactively; disregards a mandatory registration requirement; grants relief that was not requested by the parties; or awards a delay-related payment considered to constitute prohibited interest.
Importantly, Saudi courts have used partial annulment and partial enforcement where the objectionable part of an award could be separated from the remainder. This demonstrates a willingness to preserve valid portions of an award rather than invalidate it entirely.[14]
What the Draft Saudi Arbitration Law May Change
The proposed Draft Law, as described in the Report, would modernise several areas of Saudi arbitration. Because the Report discusses draft legislation, its provisions should not be treated as enacted law unless their status is separately confirmed. The key proposed reforms are discussed below.
Broader Arbitrator Eligibility
The Draft Law would remove the current requirement that a sole arbitrator or tribunal chair hold a university degree in Sharia or legal sciences. This could give parties greater freedom to appoint technical and industry specialists.
It would also expressly recognise arbitrator immunity, except in cases involving fraud or gross professional misconduct.[15]
Digital Arbitration Procedures
The Draft Law would expressly recognise electronic service, remote hearings and electronic signatures on arbitral awards. These reforms would provide clearer statutory support for digitally administered proceedings.[16]
Emergency and Interim Relief
The proposal would recognise an emergency arbitrator, that is an arbitrator appointed to decide an urgent request before the full tribunal is constituted.
It would also expand the framework for interim measures (temporary orders protecting assets, evidence, rights or the status quo before the final award).[17]
Multi-Party Arbitration
The Draft Law would address joinder, third-party intervention and consolidation. These procedures are particularly relevant to construction, infrastructure and corporate disputes involving several contracts or participants.[18]
Preserving Awards
Courts hearing annulment applications could suspend proceedings for up to 60 days to allow the tribunal to correct certain formal defects. This reflects a preference for preserving awards where an irregularity can be cured without reconsidering the merits.[19]
Practical Lessons for Arbitration Users
The Country Report supports five conclusions.
First, arbitration clauses should use clear appointment procedures and established institutional rules. Second, parties should designate reliable electronic communication channels. Third, tribunals must ensure that every party receives the evidence and submissions relied upon. Fourth, claims and remedies should be reviewed for compliance with mandatory Saudi law and applicable Sharia principles. Finally, awards should separate different categories of relief so that any objectionable component can be severed without affecting the remainder.
Conclusion
The 2026 SCCA Country Report presents a Saudi arbitration system characterised by limited merits review, respect for arbitral jurisdiction and focused judicial supervision of procedural fairness.
Saudi courts appear willing to preserve awards unless a recognised statutory ground for annulment is established. At the same time, parties and tribunals must pay close attention to proper notice, tribunal composition, equal treatment, arbitrability and mandatory Saudi law.
The proposed Draft Law would further modernise the framework through digital procedures, emergency relief, broader arbitrator eligibility and mechanisms designed to preserve awards. Taken together, these developments strengthen Saudi Arabia’s position as an increasingly significant arbitration jurisdiction.
[1] Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration, Arbitration in Saudi Arabia, Case Law and Legislative Analysis in Light of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Saudi Arbitration Framework, Country Report (July 2026) (“SCCA Country Reportˮ), pp. 5, 7-10, 31-39.
[2] SCCA Country Report, pp. 12-13, 112-113.
[3] Saudi Arbitration Law, Royal Decree No. M/34 of 12 April 2012, Articles 49-50 (“Saudi Arbitration Lawˮ); SCCA Country Report, pp. 95-108, 112-118.
[4] SCCA Country Report, pp. 13-14, 106, 116.
[5] Saudi Arbitration Law, Article 20; SCCA Country Report, pp. 69-72.
[6] Saudi Arbitration Law, Articles 4, 15, 17, 25; SCCA Country Report, pp. 57-60, 76-79.
[7] SCCA Country Report, pp. 78-79.
[8] Saudi Arbitration Law, Article 13; SCCA Country Report, pp. 55-60, 113-115.
[9] Saudi Arbitration Law, Article 6; SCCA Country Report, pp. 43-47.
[10] SCCA Country Report, pp. 45-47, 114 (discussing Case No. 4430985146, Riyadh General Court of Appeal, 15 June 2023).
[11] SCCA Country Report, pp. 73-81, 114-115 (discussing Case No. 4531120165, Riyadh General Court of Appeal, 1 June 2024).
[12] Saudi Arbitration Law, Articles 13, 39(1), 50(1)(e); SCCA Country Report, pp. 55-57, 86-87, 114 (discussing Case No. 4630380810, Asir Province General Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024).
[13] Saudi Arbitration Law, Article 50(2); SCCA Country Report, pp. 106, 112-113.
[14] SCCA Country Report, pp. 106-112, 115-118.
[15] SCCA Country Report, pp. 16-17, 162-176 (describing Draft Law, Articles 20, 22-27).
[16] SCCA Country Report, pp. 17, 144-147, 204-206, 219-222 (describing Draft Law, Articles 8, 35(2), 52(4)).
[17] SCCA Country Report, pp. 17-18, 181-192 (describing Draft Law, Articles 1, 29, 31, 49(1)).
[18] SCCA Country Report, p. 18 (describing Draft Law, Articles 37, 43).
[19] SCCA Country Report, pp. 18-20, 238-246 (describing Draft Law, Articles 61(5), 62(2), 63-66).