SAUDI ARABIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Zeyad Khoshaim, Abdullah Alajlan, Kamil Mehiz and Sarah Sedky, K&A
A recurring theme throughout the Draft Arbitration Law is the enhancement of procedural flexibility and party autonomy. Many of the proposed amendments are directed towards reducing unnecessary proce - dural constraints, increasing the discretion afforded to arbitral tribunals and parties in the management of proceedings, and facilitating the efficient conduct of arbitrations without compromising due process or the enforceability of awards. The Draft Arbitration Law also demonstrates a greater sensitivity to the realities of contemporary arbitration. Complex infrastructure projects, energy disputes, joint ventures, technology contracts and multiparty com - mercial arrangements increasingly require procedural frameworks capable of accommodating large eviden - tiary records, technical subject matter and multiple stakeholders. The Draft Arbitration Law reflects an appreciation of these realities and seeks to equip both parties and tribunals with greater procedural flexibility. More broadly, the Draft Arbitration Law signals the continued maturation of Saudi Arabia’s arbitration framework. Whereas the 2012 Arbitration Law was principally concerned with establishing a modern legislative foundation and bringing the Kingdom into closer alignment with internationally recognised standards, the Draft Arbitration Law is focused on optimisation and refinement. It reflects a legislative shift from institution-building towards improving the efficiency, functionality and competitiveness of the arbitral process itself. As of July 2026, the Draft Arbitration Law remains under legislative consideration and has not yet been issued. Although it was published for public consulta - tion in September 2025, with the consultation period concluding in October 2025, it does not currently have legal effect. The Draft Arbitration Law will become effective only upon its formal enactment and publica - tion in the Official Gazette. Just like the current Saudi Arbitration Law, the Draft Arbitration Law will likely be completed by an implementing regulation. Reframing arbitration agreements: from formality to commercial reality One of the most significant developments in the Draft Arbitration Law is its re-examination of the require -
ments governing the formation and validity of arbitra - tion agreements. While the 2012 Arbitration Law recognised modern methods of communication and adopted a relatively flexible approach to the writing requirement of the arbitration agreement, the Draft Arbitration Law takes a further step by broadening the circumstances in which an arbitration agreement will be regarded as valid and enforceable. In particular, the Draft Arbitration Law expressly recog - nises that an arbitration agreement may be evidenced through a broad range of communications and con - tractual arrangements, including digital exchanges, incorporation by reference, and other records capable of demonstrating the parties’ agreement to arbitrate. More significantly, it recognises that an arbitration agreement may be deemed to exist where one party asserts its existence in pleadings and the opposing party fails to deny it. These amendments reflect a broader legislative pref - erence for substance over form. Rather than allowing technical deficiencies in documentation to undermine a genuine agreement to arbitrate, the Draft Arbitration Law places greater emphasis on objectively manifest - ed consent and the parties’ conduct. The practical implications are significant. The reforms are likely to reduce satellite disputes concerning the existence or validity of arbitration agreements, enhance legal certainty, and limit opportunities for parties to challenge jurisdiction on purely technical grounds. They also align Saudi arbitration practice more closely with international approaches that pri - oritise commercial reality over procedural formalism. Judicial intervention: a supportive rather than supervisory role The Draft Arbitration Law recalibrates the relationship between arbitral tribunals and national courts by rein - forcing judicial support for arbitration while limiting opportunities for court proceedings to disrupt or delay the arbitral process. Under the current 2012 regime, jurisdictional objec - tions do not automatically derail the arbitration. The
805 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook