Today the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) published its Country Report on arbitration in Saudi Arabia, prepared in response to an official invitation from UNCITRAL’s Board of Editors for the Digest of Case Law. The report analyzes all judicial rulings issued by the Saudi Courts of Appeal in relation to arbitrations seated in the Kingdom (967 in total) between January 2023 and June 2025 and provides a textual comparison of the UNCITRAL Model Law, the current Saudi Arbitration Law, and the Draft Arbitration Law currently under consideration.
We highlight below three takeaways from the report: what the data reveals about Saudi courts’ annulment / enforcement of arbitral awards; how Sharia and public policy function in practice as grounds for annulment and refusing enforcement; and what the Draft Arbitration Law means for parties doing business in or with the Kingdom.
1. Saudi Courts and the Annulment / Enforcement of Arbitral Awards
The extent to which arbitral awards may be annulled in the Kingdom remains a key area of interest for users of arbitration. The report shows that Saudi courts uphold arbitral awards at an exceptionally high rate – and the data makes clear that this is not a recent development but an established feature of the arbitration landscape in the Kingdom.
The report is direct on this point: of 194 annulment applications filed between January 2023 and June 2025, 174 were rejected (a rejection rate of 89.7%). Courts consistently treated the annulment grounds under Article 50 of the Saudi Arbitration Law as exhaustive, declining to expand them by analogy or judicial discretion. (Country Report, p. 10.)
The courts were equally firm on procedural discipline. Where a party failed to raise an objection during the arbitration itself, subsequent annulment pleas based on that same irregularity were rejected on the basis that the objection was waived under Article 7 of the Saudi Arbitration Law, a principle applied consistently across the dataset regardless of the nature of the alleged defect. (Country Report, p. 46.)
Of the 20 annulments granted, 12 resulted in annulment of the entire award whereas 8 resulted in annulment of part of the award. The entirety of the award was annulled where there were found to be defects going to the integrity of the process: a truncated tribunal rendering an award without the third arbitrator's signature, a change in tribunal composition made without a party's knowledge, unilateral appointment of the tribunal by one party, denial of the right to present a defense, and the expiry of the deadline for issuance of the award without lawful extension. Partial annulments were more targeted: the tribunal ruling on VAT disputes reserved by statute for the Tax Dispute Committees, awarding attorneys' fees outside the scope of the arbitration agreement, or deciding matters that were simply never put to it. (Country Report, pp. 110–113.)
Across the dataset, judicial precedents confirm a limited standard of review. Errors in the interpretation or application of law, or in the assessment of evidence, were consistently found not to constitute grounds for annulment. (Country Report, p. 83.)
When the current study is read alongside the four prior SCCA studies covering 2017 to 2023, the cumulative picture across more than 3,300 decisions is consistent: 91.7% of annulment applications were rejected, and annulment of awards in full was ordered in only 5.5% of cases. The data does not describe an emerging trend. It describes an established one. (Country Report, p. 11.)
The practical significance of this is that parties arbitrating in, or with counterparties in, Saudi Arabia can do so with a high degree of confidence that awards will be upheld absent fundamental defects.
2. Sharia as a Ground for Annulment and Refusing Enforcement
Sharia and public policy are among the areas the report pays particular attention to. The report shows that the risk of an award being annulled or refused enforcement on Sharia or public policy grounds is statistically marginal – and the data bears this out consistently over eight years.
Between January 2023 and June 2025, Sharia was relied on as an annulment ground in one case out of 194 (a rate of 0.52%). Public policy grounds were raised in three cases (a rate of 1.55%), and one of those three overlapped with the Sharia case. Across the five successive SCCA studies covering more than 3,300 decisions issued between 2017 and 2025, only 13 annulments were granted on Sharia or public policy grounds combined (a cumulative rate of 2.3%). (Country Report, p. 104.)
The report shows that where a Sharia argument does succeed, courts act with precision: in one reported case, a delay penalty clause was refused enforcement on the basis that it constituted riba (prohibited interest under Sharia, as confirmed by Fatwa No. 24678), while the remainder of the award was enforced in full. The pattern across the case law is one of restraint, not expansionism. (Country Report, p. 110.)
One practical implication deserves emphasis. Regardless of where an arbitration is seated, Sharia and public policy apply at the Saudi enforcement stage. The question for parties is therefore not only which seat to choose, but also where the award is likely to be enforced.
In sum, for parties arbitrating in the Kingdom or with Saudi parties, this means that the risk of an award being set aside or refused enforcement on Sharia or public policy grounds is statistically marginal; but it is not zero, and it is best managed, for example, at the contract drafting stage by ensuring that contractual provisions, particularly those involving interest or penalty mechanisms, are structured with the Saudi enforcement environment in mind.
3. The Draft Arbitration Law
The Draft Arbitration Law, published for public consultation at the end of 2025 and currently under consideration, represents the most significant legislative development addressed in the report. It is the product of a deliberate effort to reduce formalism, accelerate procedures, and bring the Saudi framework into even closer alignment with the UNCITRAL Model Law, while preserving the (equally important) domestic regulatory features that reflect the Kingdom's legal system.
The Draft Law builds on Saudi Arabia's existing foundation as a Contracting State to the New York Convention since 1994, with a current arbitration law already substantially aligned with the Model Law, and takes that alignment further. The report's legislative comparison identifies a clear trajectory: from national adaptation of the Model Law toward integration with the global arbitration framework. (Country Report, p. 5.)
Among the proposed changes that would come into effect under the Draft Law, the following are of particular note:
Arbitral awards would expressly be given res judicata effect regardless of the country in which they were issued. This codifies what the current law implies but does not state, and removes a potential source of uncertainty for parties relying on foreign awards in Saudi proceedings. (Country Report, p. 17.)
The requirement to deposit an award with the competent court as a precondition to enforcement would be removed. Further, the requirement that a sole arbitrator or tribunal chair hold a university degree in Sharia or law would be removed. Under the Draft Law, an arbitrator need only be a natural person with full legal capacity and not deprived of civil rights by reason of criminal conviction. This would widen the pool of eligible arbitrators to include technical specialists in construction, energy, finance, and other fields, a change that reflects prevailing international practice and responds directly to the needs of complex commercial disputes. (Country Report, pp. 14, 17.)
Emergency arbitrators would be expressly recognized. Parties would be able to seek urgent interim relief before the final tribunal is constituted, a mechanism already familiar from leading institutional rules but previously absent from the Saudi statutory framework. The report illustrates how this works in practice in the context of SCCA arbitration through an SCCA emergency arbitration case in which the emergency arbitrator confirmed jurisdiction on the basis of a filed arbitration request before substantive proceedings had commenced. (Country Report, p. 16.)
The Draft Law is not an isolated reform. It is part of a coordinated legislative and institutional effort to position Saudi Arabia as a mature, internationally integrated arbitration seat.
For parties arbitrating in the Kingdom, the direction of travel is significant: the Draft Law, if enacted in its current form, will modernize the Saudi arbitral framework, broaden the pool of available arbitrators, and provide express statutory support for mechanisms such as emergency arbitration that reflect international best practice, making Saudi-seated arbitration an even more attractive option for complex, high-value transactions.
Norah Aldosari (White & Case, Trainee Associate, Riyadh) contributed to the development of this publication.
White & Case means the international legal practice comprising White & Case LLP, a New York State registered limited liability partnership, White & Case LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated under English law and all other affiliated partnerships, companies and entities.
This article is prepared for the general information of interested persons. It is not, and does not attempt to be, comprehensive in nature. Due to the general nature of its content, it should not be regarded as legal advice.
© 2026 White & Case LLP
