Shipping 2026

SAUDI ARABIA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Faisal Daudpota, Daudpota International (in alliance with Khalil Aljehani Law Firm)

Fundamentals of Ship Arrest in Saudi Arabia Statutory architecture of ship arrest: Royal Decree M/33 The legal framework for ship arrest in Saudi Arabia is now explicitly codified in Articles 74–81 of the Com - mercial Maritime Law (Royal Decree M/33). Unlike the broad discretionary powers exercised under the old regime, the new law establishes a rigid, criteria-based The cornerstone of any ship arrest application in Saudi Arabia is the existence of a maritime debt. The Saudi legislator has adopted a “closed-list” approach, simi - lar to that found in the 1999 International Convention on the Arrest of Ships. Article 75 of the Commercial Maritime Law provides an exhaustive enumeration of what constitutes a maritime debt. A claim must fall squarely within one of these categories to justify an arrest; a general commercial debt against a ship- owner that does not specifically relate to the vessel’s operation or navigation is insufficient grounds for a ship arrest warrant. The categories defined in Article 75 include, but are not limited to, the following. system for the detention of vessels. Concept of “maritime debt” (Article 75) • Operational damages: Claims arising from damage caused by a ship, whether by collision, pollution or other form of marine casualty (Article 75 (1)). This reflects the Kingdom’s strict stance on environ - mental protection and port safety. • Chartering and carriage: Disputes arising from contracts for the use or hire of a ship (charterpar - ties) or contracts for the carriage of goods (bills of lading) (Article 75 (3), (4)). This is critical for cargo interests and charterers seeking security for breach of contract. • Supplies and necessaries: Claims for goods, mate - rials, provisions, bunkers and equipment (including containers) supplied to the ship for its operation or maintenance (Article 75 (10)). This category is the most frequently litigated, as seen in the case stud - ies regarding fuel and agency services. • Construction and repair: Costs related to the build - ing, rebuilding or repair of a ship, including dock charges (Article 75 (11)).

• Crew wages: Wages and other sums due to the Master, officers and other members of the vessel’s complement in respect of their employment on the ship (Article 75 (12)). • Disbursements: Master’s disbursements and disbursements made by shippers, charterers or agents on behalf of the ship or its owner (Article 75 (13)). • Ownership disputes: Disputes as to the title to or ownership of a ship (Article 75 (14)), or disputes between co-owners regarding the possession, employment or earnings of a ship (Article 75 (15)). The specificity of this list serves a dual purpose: it provides certainty to maritime creditors regarding their rights while simultaneously protecting ship-owners from frivolous arrests based on unrelated corporate debts. As will be seen in the analysis of Case No 4470343937, the courts adhere strictly to this list, requiring plaintiffs to explicitly map their claims to specific subsections of Article 75. Sister-ship arrest and ownership dynamics (Article 76) Article 76 of the Commercial Maritime Law introduces a potent tool for creditors: sister-ship arrest. The law stipulates that a creditor may arrest: • the specific ship in respect of which the maritime debt arose; or • any other ship that is owned by the person who was the owner of the ship in question at the time the maritime claim arose. This provision is designed to prevent ship-owners from evading liability by moving the specific vessel involved in the dispute out of the jurisdiction while other assets remain. However, the Saudi application of this rule is nuanced. The “associated ship” arrest – arresting a ship owned by a different company that has the same beneficial owner as the debtor – is gen - erally not recognised in Saudi Arabia, unlike in juris - dictions like South Africa. The corporate veil is rarely pierced in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) unless explicit fraud is proven. The statutory language focus - es on the “registered owner”, compelling creditors to provide definitive proof of ownership linkage between the vessels.

536 CHAMBERS.COM