SAUDI ARABIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Zeyad Khoshaim, Abdullah Alajlan, Kamil Mehiz and Sarah Sedky, K&A
tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, and a rejected plea is generally revisited only in annulment proceed - ings. Arbitrator challenges are treated differently, as a disqualification petition before the tribunal suspends the proceedings, although a later court challenge to the tribunal’s rejection does not. Tribunals may con - tinue with the arbitration and, where appropriate, pro - ceed to the issuance of an award notwithstanding the existence of parallel court applications. On the other hand, under the Draft Arbitration Law, a disqualifica - tion petition before the tribunal does not suspend the proceedings and the tribunal may proceed with hear - ing the dispute and issuing an award even with the existence of a pending challenge. This feature of the Draft Arbitration Law significantly reduces opportunities for tactical delay and proce - dural obstruction. In many jurisdictions, jurisdictional challenges and arbitrator challenges have historically been used as tools to increase costs and delay pro - ceedings. By permitting arbitrations to continue while such issues are addressed, the Draft Arbitration Law reinforces the principle that judicial oversight should support rather than impede the arbitral process. At the same time, judicial supervision is not elimi - nated. Courts retain important functions relating to tribunal constitution, interim measures, jurisdictional review and post-award remedies. The distinction is that these functions are increasingly structured to complement arbitration rather than compete with it. The result is a more mature and arbitration-supportive framework in which courts act as facilitators of arbi - tration rather than alternative forums for re-litigating procedural disputes. Procedural flexibility and party-controlled timetables The Draft Arbitration Law marks a deliberate departure from the structured procedural timelines that charac - terised the 2012 regime. Most notably, it removes the statutory 12-month period for the issuance of awards and replaces it with a framework that affords signifi - cantly greater procedural autonomy to parties and tribunals.
Rather than imposing a uniform timetable irrespective of the complexity of the dispute, the Draft Arbitration Law recognises that arbitration is most effective when procedural deadlines can be adapted to the specific circumstances of each case. This reflects a broader international trend favouring active case manage - ment and procedural flexibility over rigid statutory constraints. The reform also recalibrates the role of courts in rela - tion to procedural timetables. While judicial interven - tion remains available where necessary, responsibility for managing the progress of proceedings is placed squarely in the hands of parties and tribunals. From a practical perspective, this change is likely to prove particularly valuable in complex and high-value disputes where extensive factual records, technical evidence or multiple parties require a more tailored procedural approach. By allowing proceedings to develop according to their complexity, the Draft Arbi - tration Law enhances both procedural flexibility and the prospects of well-reasoned, enforceable awards. Enforcement: From Procedural Formality to Effective Execution The pre-2026 enforcement framework The effectiveness of any dispute resolution system ultimately depends on its ability to translate legal rights into practical outcomes. In the context of arbi - tration, the value of an award is measured not merely by the quality of the arbitral process but by the suc - cessful party’s ability to realise the benefit of that award through enforcement. Under the 2012 Enforcement Law, Saudi Arabia pos - sessed a structured and generally effective enforce - ment framework. Nevertheless, the system remained largely creditor-driven. Courts possessed compara - tively limited investigatory powers, while successful parties frequently bore the practical burden of iden - tifying assets, initiating enforcement measures and maintaining procedural momentum throughout the execution process. In many cases, enforcement depended on the credi - tor’s ability to locate assets, obtain relevant infor - mation and pursue available remedies proactively.
806 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook