Redifining Judicial Rule in Arbitration: Key Features of Saudi Arabia’s 2025 Draft Law —SCCA Alignment, Preliminary Jurisdictional Challenges, and Tribunal-Centric Interim Measures

While preserving competence-competence (empowering tribunals to determine jurisdiction and agreement validity), the Draft Law introduces a material departure from the current regime: preliminary rulings on jurisdiction may now be challenged before the courts.

Article 28 (4) of the Draft Law introduces a 30- day window to challenge preliminary jurisdiction rulings before courts, departing from the current regime (Article 22(3)) which restricts such challenges to setting-aside applications against final awards. This aligns with Article 16(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law and institutional practice under the SCCA Rules 2023 (Article 24(3)), which mandate early jurisdictional objections.

The reform mitigates the cost of proceeding with merit hearings where jurisdiction is disputed. To prevent dilatory tactics, Article 28(4) expressly provides that such challenges do not stay the arbitration, permitting tribunals to continue proceedings and render final awards pending judicial review.

Article 28 (4)’s right to “object” constitutes an appeal rather than a limited setting-aside challenge, suggesting a de novo review of the arbitral tribunal’s jurisdiction determination. Unlike the restrictive setting-aside grounds under Article 50, this provision allows courts to consider the matter afresh.
However, the Draft Law does not specify whether such review permits parties to introduce new evidence and arguments not previously raised before the tribunal. While most jurisdictions adopting the Model Law’s Article 16 (3) permit a complete rehearing on jurisdiction by the court of appeal, recent legislative trends have moved toward restricting new evidence in appeal, to promote efficiency and prevent parties from treating tribunal hearings as preliminary proceedings.
Notably, Article 28(4) imposes no such restrictions. Consequently, it remains uncertain whether Saudi courts will conduct a full rehearing of jurisdictional issues or adopt a more limited approach to judicial review.

The Draft Law establishes a comprehensive regime for tribunal-ordered interim measures, with courts assuming a subsidiary enforcement role.

Article 29 empowers tribunals to order measures preserving the status quo, preventing imminent harm, and preserving assets or evidence. Article 30 conditions such relief on demonstrating irreparable harm, reasonable prospects of success on the merits and providing adequate security where required. These provisions align with Model Law Articles 17–17A and SCCA Rule 28, addressing gaps in the current Arbitration Law which lacks specific authority for tribunals to grant such relief.

Critically, Article 1 expands the definition of "Arbitral Tribunal" to include Emergency Arbitrators (EAs) appointed under institutional rules (e.g., within one business day under SCCA Rules, even before a Request for Arbitration is filed).

This fundamentally alters the jurisdiction of courts in the context of interim relief:

• Current Law (Article 22(1)): Courts retain jurisdiction to grant interim relief until arbitration proceedings are formally commenced.
• Draft Law (Article 46(1)): Court jurisdiction is restricted to the period prior to the constitution of the tribunal—which now includes the appointment of an EA. Once an EA is appointed, the tribunal (in its emergency capacity) exclusively controls interim relief, removing the court's power to intervene directly.

Once a measure is ordered by the tribunal or EA, Article 31 provides for urgent court enforcement within 15 days, subject only to limited refusal grounds consistent with Model Law Articles 17H–I. This framework prioritizes tribunal primacy while preserving the court’s coercive powers for enforcement of tribunal-ordered interim relief against third parties.

Article 61 (5) permits courts to stay annulment proceedings for up to 60 days to allow a tribunal to modify the form of the award so that the grounds for annulment may be removed.

This is a unique provision under the Draft Law, aimed at promoting the enforcement of arbitral awards, by empowering tribunals to modify them to remove grounds for annulment. Distinct from partial setting-aside under Article 61(1)(f) (which addresses excess of jurisdiction), this aligns with SCCA Rule 39's correction mechanism, though its theoretical scope encompasses all Article 61(1) grounds.

While tribunals are typically functus officio post-award—potentially limiting rectification to clerical errors—the provision promotes judicial restraint and affords parties a valuable opportunity to salvage the award without full annulment.

Although not yet in force, the Draft Law signals a decisive recalibration of the judicial role to promote party autonomy and align Saudi arbitration with the Model Law and SCCA Rules. By enabling early jurisdictional challenges, curtailing direct court intervention in interim relief, and introducing stays of annulment proceedings, it proposes a tribunal-centric framework. Ultimately, the regime's efficacy—once enacted—will depend on judicial interpretation, particularly regarding the scope of review over preliminary jurisdictional rulings.