Briefing

Saudi Arabia as a leading Middle East arbitration seat: SCCA findings

In the last decade, Saudi Arabia’s arbitration landscape has undergone a profound transformation. Driven by the launch of Vision 2030 in 2016, and a sustained commitment to judicial and legislative reform, the Kingdom has invested significantly in building an internationally credible arbitration framework, which is increasingly recognised by parties and those advising them on cross-border disputes in the region.

Saudi’s Vision 2030 has driven extensive legislative and institutional reforms, modernising the Kingdom’s arbitration framework through legislative updates, judicial development, institutional support, and investments in digitalisation and capacity building, contributing to a more sophisticated and internationally focussed arbitration environment. Against that backdrop, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) has now published a comprehensive report (the Report)¹ examining the extent to which Saudi arbitration law and practice aligns with the UNCITRAL Model Law², one of the most widely used benchmarks for assessing the quality of an arbitral seat.

The Report combines an analysis of Saudi Court of Appeal decisions and selected arbitral awards with a comparison of the Model Law, the 2012 Saudi Arbitration Law, and the Draft Saudi Arbitration Law published for consultation at the end of 2025. Prepared in response to an official UNCITRAL invitation, the Report will form part of the forthcoming UNCITRAL Digest of Case Law on the Model Law.

For those parties acting in or those of us advising clients on Saudi-related disputes, investment structuring, or seat selection, the Report is essential reading.

Highlights from the Report

Part I of the Report analyses 967 arbitration related Saudi Court of Appeal decisions from January 2023 to June 2025, all seated in the Kingdom and applying the Saudi Arbitration Law. The key headline findings are as follows:

Annulment challenges are brought frequently, but very rarely succeed.
1. Of the 967 judgments in the Report’s period of analysis, 194 annulment applications were filed (representing 20.1%), of which 174 were rejected, a rejection rate of 89.7%.
2. Only 20 annulment applications were granted (10.3%), comprising 12 full annulments (6.2%) and 8 partial annulments (4.1%), reflecting a judicial inclination to confine annulment to the narrowest possible scope.
3. The Report notes that these figures are consistent with a longer-term trend: across SCCA studies covering 2017 to 2025 and more than 3,300 judgments, annulment was accepted in only 8.3% of 565 annulment motions.
Sharia and public policy grounds are invoked rarely and applied even more rarely.
1. Reliance on Sharia as an annulment ground was extremely limited, resulting in only one partial annulment (0.5%), and reliance on public policy was similarly rare, arising in three cases (1.55%) – including the same judgment in which the court also relied on Sharia grounds.
2. The Report identifies that across the broader 2017–2025 dataset, Sharia and public policy annulment was limited to 2.3%.
Saudi courts apply a strictly limited standard of review.
1. Saudi courts do not reconsider merits, reassess the tribunal’s substantive law analysis, or re-evaluate evidence, except where one of the exclusive annulment grounds under Article 50 of the Saudi Arbitration Law is established.
2. The annulment grounds largely correspond to Article 34 of the Model Law and Article V of the New York Convention 1958, and case law consistently affirms that legal or factual errors alone are not grounds for annulment.
The Draft Saudi Arbitration Law signals an ambitious reform trajectory.
1. The Draft Law modernises procedure by expressly recognising email and digital notices, allowing virtual hearings, and electronic signatures on awards.
2. It also expands interim relief tools, including a fuller interim measures framework and express recognition of emergency arbitrators.
3. Multi-party arbitration (joinder and consolidation) are reviewed, and the default 12-month limit for rendering a final award currently found in the 2012 law is removed.

A closer look: Key themes from the case law

The Report is a unique and comprehensive source enabling the reader to understand the Saudi courts approach. In particular the Report identifies the following key points:

Kompetenz-Kompetenz and Separability are firmly established in case law, with judicial precedent consistently affirming both principles, and recognising the tribunal’s primary authority to decide its own jurisdiction and treating the arbitration clause as independent from the underlying contract; including where the contract has been terminated or challenged, provided the clause itself is not defective.

The courts confine their supervision to the statutory grounds. Saudi courts consistently confine judicial intervention to instances expressly provided by law, with no identified rulings extending supervision beyond statutory limits. Also, holding that oversight does not extend to reviewing the tribunal’s interpretation of substantive law or its assessment of evidence, firmly rejecting what might be characterised as “appeals in disguise”.
Due process protections are real, but are construed tightly within the Article 50 framework. Saudi courts take seriously the right to be heard, but only where there is genuine and material impairment, as seen in the following cases:
1. In 2023 a Riyadh award was annulled where service via WhatsApp was not proven compliant with Article 6 and the applicable procedural rules. The court found that this had deprived a party of the opportunity to present its defence.
2. In a later 2024 Riyadh case, the award was annulled where the tribunal failed to provide a party access to submissions and evidence and failed to notify material procedural steps. The court found a material impairment of the right to present a defence.
3. However, the Report shows that procedural complaints that do not engage an Article 50 ground consistently fail.
Tribunal composition is treated as a matter of significant importance. Courts generally respect agreed appointment mechanisms, but intervene to safeguard procedural fairness and impartiality. Examples include:
1. annulment of an award arising from a clause that permitted unilateral appointment by one party, and invalidation of a committee-based clause where the “tribunal” comprised employees of a party, each undermining impartiality at a structural level; and
2. a 2025 Riyadh case, which annulled an award where the tribunal’s composition changed without one party’s knowledge.
Arbitrability is broad, with clearly defined exceptions. Judicial precedents confirm the general rule that disputes are arbitrable, subject to limited exceptions where the legislature assigns exclusive jurisdiction to a specific authority or excludes categories of disputes, including tax matters; personal status; and disputes incapable of settlement. Examples include:
1. VAT-related disputes, which have been held non-arbitrable (with partial annulment limited to the VAT element);
2. certain endowment or trustee matters requiring judicial authorisation have also been excluded.
Enforcement-stage review is equally constrained. Where Sharia or public policy concerns arise, Saudi courts adopt a surgical approach. Courts may enforce an award in part whilst refusing enforcement of elements that violate Sharia or public policy. Examples include:
1. refusing a delay penalty characterised as Riba (unjust), whilst enforcing the remainder of the award.

Why Saudi Arabia? The case for the Kingdom as an arbitration seat

The Report’s findings make a compelling case for Saudi Arabia as a leading regional arbitration seat. For international parties and their counsel, the following factors are particularly significant:

International framework alignment. As a Contracting State to the New York Convention 1958, since 1994, Saudi Arabia positions itself against key indicators commonly used when selecting an arbitration seat, including treaty participation, an arbitration-supportive legislative framework, and an arbitration-friendly judiciary. The Report confirms that the Model Law is the principal procedural reference for Saudi arbitration legislation, with the Draft Law indicating a trajectory toward reduced formalities, accelerated procedures, stronger institutional arbitration, and closer alignment with international standards.

Award finality and predictability. The Report’s statistics speak for themselves. An annulment rejection rate of 89.7%, a limited merits review standard, and a consistently restrictive approach to Sharia and public policy grounds together provide a high degree of confidence that awards rendered in Saudi Arabia will be treated as final. The data demonstrates that courts resist “back-door” appeals, and parties can rely on the integrity of the arbitral process.

A modern and digitally progressive procedure. Case law recognises electronic notifications, including SMS and email designated by the parties, with proof of delivery to the agreed channel generally treating the burden as satisfied and shifting it to the recipient to prove non-receipt. The Draft Law enhances the seat’s competitiveness further by easing arbitrator eligibility requirements, removing the degree-in-law or Sharia requirement, and codifying arbitrator immunity, except in cases of fraud or gross professional misconduct.

Enhanced tools for complex, multi-party, and international disputes. The Draft Law’s expanded interim measures framework and express recognition of emergency arbitrators directly address the needs of parties to complex commercial and construction disputes requiring urgent relief. The provisions on joinder, consolidation, and the removal of the 12-month award deadline are particularly welcome developments for large-scale projects, where related disputes frequently involve multiple parties across multiple contracts.

A growing institutional infrastructure. The SCCA itself is evidence of the Kingdom’s commitment to building world-class arbitration infrastructure. The publication of a study of this depth and rigour, which will incorporated into the UNCITRAL Digest, reflects the maturity of the Saudi arbitration market and the seriousness with which the Kingdom is pursuing its ambition to become a leading international arbitration hub.

Conclusion

Saudi Arabia’s arbitration framework is no longer merely a regional alternative, it is a credible and increasingly sophisticated forum for the resolution of complex international disputes.

The SCCA’s study provides the clearest evidence to date that Saudi courts apply an arbitration-friendly standard of review, that awards are treated as final absent clear and established grounds for challenge, and that the legislative direction of travel is firmly toward further alignment with international best practice. For parties active in the Kingdom across sectors including construction, energy, and infrastructure, these developments are of direct and immediate practical relevance.

For further information on arbitration in Saudi Arabia or the SCCA’s Report, please contact the authors of this Insight, or HFW’s International Arbitration team.

Footnotes