Drawing on an analysis of nearly a thousand appellate court decisions issued between January 2023 and June 2025, together with a comparative review of the current Saudi Arbitration Law, the Draft Saudi Arbitration Law and the UNCITRAL Model Law, the SCCA’s report provides valuable insight into the reality of conducting arbitration in the Kingdom.
Annulment remains an exceptional remedy
The report's analysis of annulment proceedings offers one of the clearest indicators of how Saudi courts approach arbitration in practice. Perhaps the most striking takeaway is that nearly 90% of applications seeking to annul arbitral awards during the study period were unsuccessful.
Of the 194 annulment applications identified within the 967 appellate decisions reviewed between January 2023 and June 2025, 174 were rejected, representing a rejection rate of approximately 90%. Only 20 applications succeeded, resulting in 12 full annulments and 8 partial annulments. The longer-term data (between 2017 and 2025) reveals an equally consistent approach, representing a rejection rate of 92%.
Judicial review remains confined to the grounds expressly set out in Article 50 of the Arbitration Law, including defects in the arbitration agreement, due process concerns, jurisdictional overreach and procedural irregularities affecting the validity of the award. Importantly, the courts do not reassess evidence, reconsider factual findings or revisit the substantive merits of an arbitral award simply because a party disagrees with the tribunal's conclusions.
For parties considering KSA as a seat of arbitration, these figures provide a useful indicator of judicial predictability. They suggest that arbitral awards are unlikely to be disturbed absent a clear procedural or jurisdictional defect and that the courts continue to treat annulment as a limited statutory remedy rather than an opportunity to revisit the merits of a dispute.
Public policy and Sharia challenges remain uncommon
Public policy and Sharia considerations have long attracted attention in discussions concerning arbitration in KSA. The report's findings, however, suggest that successful challenges based on these grounds remain relatively rare in practice.
During the period covered by the report, only one annulment application succeeded solely on Sharia grounds, while only three successful annulments involved public policy considerations. The broader dataset (between 2017 and 2025) again reveals a similar pattern; only 13 annulments out of 565 applications involved public policy or Sharia-related grounds.
While public policy and Sharia principles remain important components of the Saudi legal framework, the report suggests that they are invoked successfully only in a limited number of cases. The data therefore challenges the perception that such considerations frequently undermine arbitral awards in practice.
A judiciary increasingly aligned with international arbitration principles
Beyond the statistics, the report identifies several recurring themes in the courts' treatment of arbitration-related disputes.
Perhaps the most significant is the judiciary's consistently restrained approach to intervention. The report notes that courts generally limit their involvement to circumstances expressly contemplated by the Arbitration Law, reinforcing both the independence of arbitral proceedings and the finality of arbitral awards.
The report also highlights continued judicial support for party autonomy. Saudi courts have generally respected the parties' chosen mechanisms for appointing arbitrators and have upheld the procedural frameworks selected by the parties, including institutional arbitration rules. Judicial intervention appears largely confined to situations involving concerns relating to fairness, impartiality or compliance with mandatory legal requirements.
Another notable finding is the courts' recognition and application of foundational arbitration principles. The report confirms judicial support for both competence-competence and separability, allowing arbitral tribunals to determine jurisdictional objections in the first instance and recognising the independence of arbitration agreements from the contracts in which they are contained.
The judiciary has also demonstrated a pragmatic approach to modern arbitral practice. Courts have recognised electronic notifications and communications, including notices delivered by email, SMS and other electronic means, reflecting a willingness to accommodate contemporary methods of conducting arbitration proceedings.
Taken together, these trends reflect a judiciary that appears to be increasingly aligned with internationally recognised arbitration principles and supportive of arbitration as an effective dispute resolution mechanism.
A brief look at the Draft Arbitration Law
While the report's analysis of judicial practice is arguably its most significant contribution, it also provides insight into the reforms proposed under the Draft Arbitration Law.
Many of the proposed changes focus on modernisation and procedural flexibility. The draft legislation expressly recognises electronic communications, virtual hearings and electronic signatures, reflecting the continued digitalisation of arbitral proceedings.
The Draft Arbitration Law also proposes a number of features commonly associated with modern institutional arbitration, including procedures for the appointment of emergency arbitrators, expanded interim measures and mechanisms allowing for joinder and consolidation in appropriate circumstances.
In addition, the report notes the proposed removal of the requirement that a sole arbitrator or tribunal chair possess a degree in law or Sharia. If implemented, this reform would immediately broaden the pool of potential arbitrators and provide parties with greater flexibility when selecting tribunal members.
While many of these reforms are procedural in nature, they further align the Saudi arbitration framework with features commonly found in leading international arbitration jurisdictions.
The proposals demonstrate a clear intention (at least) to modernise the legislative framework and respond to the evolving needs of arbitration users.
Conclusion
The SCCA's 2026 Country Report provides one of the most detailed empirical assessments of arbitration in KSA to date. The report should, of course, be read in the context that it has been produced by the SCCA, an institution with a clear interest in the continued development and promotion of arbitration in KSA. That said, the underlying data speaks for itself. The consistently high rate of unsuccessful annulment applications, together with the courts' recognition of fundamental arbitration principles, suggests a judiciary that is generally supportive of arbitration and reluctant to interfere with arbitral awards absent clear statutory grounds. Viewed alongside the proposed reforms contained in the Draft Arbitration Law, the report provides further evidence of KSA’s continued evolution as a sophisticated and arbitration-friendly jurisdiction.
For more information contact Alexander Kelsall.
With thanks to Teebah AlHeyari for her assistance with the research and preparation of this article.
