Shipping 2026

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

Case Law Analysis: The Crucible of Commercial Court Jurisprudence The transition from the board of grievances to the specialised commercial courts has generated a body of case law that illustrates the practical application of these statutory principles. Four pivotal cases that highlight different aspects of the maritime debt regime are examined here. Al Maha and the doctrine of privileged debts: Case No 4470343937 (1444H) – Jeddah Commercial Court Context This case represents a textbook example of a “sup - plies and necessaries” claim under Article 75 (10) of the Maritime Law. The plaintiff, a shipping agent, had provided fuel, provisions, water and crew wages to the Tanzanian-flagged vessel Al Maha at the request of its captain. When the owners failed to pay the out - standing balance of roughly SAR1.2 million, the agent The plaintiff grounded their claim on the assertion that these expenses constituted not just a maritime debt, but a privileged debt (maritime lien). They argued that under Article 76, such debts attach directly to the vessel, granting the creditor a right of pursuit ( haq al- hatabbu ) that survives changes in ownership or man - agement. The defendants attempted to deflect liability by claiming they had delegated the ship’s operation to a third-party manager via a private agreement and arrested the ship. Legal arguments The Jeddah Commercial Court rejected the owner’s defence, affirming the in rem nature of the maritime debt. The court’s reasoning underscores a criti - cal trend in Saudi jurisprudence: commercial reality trumps private arrangements. The court relied on the invoices stamped by the captain – the ship’s legal rep - resentative – as conclusive evidence of the debt. The court held that the captain’s signature binds the vessel and its owners, regardless of internal management contracts of which the supplier may not be aware. were thus not personally liable. Judicial reasoning and insight

However, the definition of “owner” for the purposes of liability can extend to the “operator” or “charterer” in specific contexts regarding the arrest itself, though perhaps not the final judgment. The law permits the arrest of a ship for a debt of the charterer if the creditor can prove a maritime lien, or if the charterer effectively had control over the navigation and management of the vessel, thereby incurring the debt on the ship’s behalf. Procedural nexus: precautionary seizure (hajz tahafudhi) In Saudi legal terminology, a ship arrest is a form of precautionary seizure ( hajz tahafudhi ). It is an interim, protective measure governed not only by the Mari - time Law but also by the broader Civil Procedure Law (Article 205 et seq) and the Commercial Courts Law (Article 36). The judicial test for arrest To successfully obtain an arrest warrant, a claimant must satisfy the Commercial Court on three distinct elements. • Prima facie claim (fumus boni iuris): The claim - ant must present documents (invoices, contracts, delivery receipts) that demonstrate the apparent validity of the debt. The standard is not “beyond reasonable doubt” but rather the “likelihood of suc - cess” on the merits. • Urgency and risk (periculum in mora): There must be a credible threat that the debtor will dissipate assets or that the vessel will leave the jurisdic - tion, rendering enforcement of a future judgment impossible. In the context of foreign vessels, the mere fact that the ship is preparing to sail is often accepted by Saudi courts as sufficient evidence of urgency. • Counter-security: Perhaps the most significant practical hurdle is the requirement for the claimant to post security. This is intended to indemnify the ship-owner against damages should the arrest be deemed wrongful. As evidenced in Case No 298 of 1439H, the courts often require a certified check or bank guarantee covering the entire value of the claim before issuing the warrant.

537 CHAMBERS.COM