SAUDI ARABIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Zeyad Khoshaim, Abdullah Alajlan, Kamil Mehiz and Sarah Sedky, K&A
ment regime and a clearer allocation of authority between arbitral tribunals and Saudi national courts. Collectively, these reforms enhanced the efficiency, predictability and credibility of arbitration and posi - tioned Saudi Arabia as an increasingly attractive ven - ue for dispute resolution. Notwithstanding these advances, the 2012 Arbitration Framework retained certain structural characteristics reflective of a more cautious stage in the Kingdom’s arbitration development. While these features were not inconsistent with international standards, they introduced elements of rigidity that could affect pro - cedural flexibility in complex disputes. For example, Article 14 of the 2012 Arbitration Law requires that a sole arbitrator or the chairman of a three or more members’ tribunal possess qualifica - tions in law or Shari’a. While intended to ensure an appropriate level of legal expertise and compatibility with the Kingdom’s legal framework, the requirement also constrained party autonomy and reduced flex - ibility in the constitution of tribunals, particularly in technically complex disputes where industry exper - tise may be of equal or greater importance than legal qualifications. Similarly, Article 40 of the 2012 Arbitration Law embodied the legislature’s commitment to procedur - al efficiency by establishing, in the absence of party agreement, a default 12-month period for the issu - ance of the final award. Although that period could be extended by the tribunal and, where necessary, by agreement of the parties or order of the competent court, the provision nevertheless established a rela - tively structured procedural framework. While intend - ed to encourage the timely resolution of disputes, such an approach did not always sit comfortably with the practical demands of complex, multiparty or high- value arbitrations where greater procedural flexibility may be required. At the judicial level, certain procedural interfaces retained the potential to affect the momentum of arbitral proceedings. Applications concerning arbi - trator appointments, challenges and jurisdictional objections could create parallel judicial processes
that, while not necessarily suspending the arbitration, nonetheless introduced opportunities for delay and procedural complexity. The enforcement regime (under the 2012 Enforcement Law enacted by Royal Decree No M/53 dated 3 July 2012) operating alongside the 2012 Arbitration Frame - work reflected a similar philosophy. While procedurally coherent and effective in many cases, enforcement remained largely creditor-driven. Courts possessed comparatively limited investigatory powers, and suc - cessful parties often bore the practical burden of identifying assets, initiating enforcement measures, and maintaining procedural momentum throughout the execution process. As a result, enforcement fre - quently depended as much upon creditor initiative as upon the strength of the underlying award. Against this backdrop, the Draft Arbitration Law and the 2026 Enforcement Law should be viewed not as a rejection of the 2012 framework but as the next stage in its evolution. Their objective is not to replace the foundations established in 2012 but rather to refine, optimise and modernise them in light of the practi - cal experience gained over more than a decade of implementation. The Draft Arbitration Law: Evolution and Strategic Realignment Status and legislative direction The Draft Arbitration Law of October 2025 has not yet been formally issued and therefore does not alter the current legal framework governing arbitration in Saudi Arabia. Its significance lies instead in the insight it provides into the legislature’s policy objectives and the anticipated direction of future reform. Rather than departing from the foundations estab - lished by the 2012 Arbitration Law, the Draft Arbitra - tion Law seeks to refine and modernise the existing framework by addressing practical issues that have emerged through more than a decade of implemen - tation. In doing so, it reflects the Kingdom’s contin - ued commitment to maintaining a modern arbitration regime aligned with international best practices while responding to the evolving needs of increasingly sophisticated domestic and cross-border disputes.
804 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook