Enforcing foreign arbitral awards in Saudi Arabia

For contractors and developers working on Saudi giga‑projects, however, enforcement of an award continues to raise distinctive issues. These include the application of public order and Sharia principles, as well as the limited recognition of interim measures, all of which must be carefully navigated during disputes.

Ultimately, an arbitral award is only as valuable as its enforceability. Where a counterparty’s assets are in KSA, it is critical to understand how Saudi courts approach the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, such as those issued by tribunals under the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) Rules. Equally important is knowing what asset protection tools are realistically available while arbitration is ongoing.

The dispute resolution framework

English law‑governed contracts, with disputes resolved by arbitration seated in England under the LCIA Rules, are common on large international construction projects involving Saudi counterparties.

Once an award has been issued, however, enforcement becomes a matter of Saudi law. Where the award debtor’s assets are in KSA, recognition and enforcement must proceed through the Saudi Enforcement Courts, which apply the Saudi Enforcement Law.

The role of the Enforcement Court is limited. It does not reconsider the merits of the dispute but instead assesses whether the conditions for enforcement have been satisfied. Saudi Enforcement Courts have exclusive jurisdiction to recognise and enforce foreign judgments and arbitral awards, and foreign arbitral awards fall squarely within their remit.

Saudi courts have repeatedly confirmed that enforcement judges may not review the substance of a foreign award. Their task is to verify compliance with the requirements set out in the Enforcement Law.

Conditions for enforcement

Before ordering enforcement, the Enforcement Court must be satisfied that several core conditions are met, including:

• that reciprocity exists between Saudi Arabia and the jurisdiction in which the award was issued;
• that the foreign tribunal had jurisdiction under its own laws and the Saudi courts would not have had exclusive jurisdiction;
• that the parties were properly notified, duly represented and given an opportunity to present their case;
• that the award is final and binding under the law of the seat; and
• that enforcement would not conflict with Saudi public order or Sharia principles.

These requirements apply equally to LCIA awards seated in England.

Reciprocity and the New York Convention

Reciprocity is often the initial issue in enforcement proceedings. The party seeking enforcement must demonstrate that reciprocity exists between Saudi Arabia and the issuing jurisdiction.

Saudi Arabia’s accession to the 1958 New York Convention significantly simplifies these requirements. Saudi courts have confirmed that Convention membership is sufficient to establish reciprocity for purpose of enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.

In practical terms, LCIA awards issued in London benefit from the New York Convention framework and are, in principle, enforceable in Saudi Arabia.

Key enforcement risks and defences

Although the grounds for resisting enforcement are limited, award debtors frequently raise objections based on alleged procedural defects, a lack of finality, or conflicts with public order.

Due process and representation

A commonly raised defence is that the respondent was not properly represented or was denied an opportunity to defend itself during the arbitration.

Saudi courts will examine whether the respondent was duly notified of the proceedings and had a genuine opportunity to participate. This defence is typically relevant only where an award was issued by default.

Where the respondent appeared in the arbitration, filed submissions or advanced counterclaims, Saudi courts are unlikely to accept a due process objection. For contractors, maintaining a clear and robust procedural record during the arbitration is therefore essential to successful enforcement.

Finality of the award

The Enforcement Court will not enforce an award that remains subject to appeal or challenge under the law of the seat.

If finality is disputed, this can usually be resolved by providing confirmation from the tribunal or a competent authority that the award is final and binding. While this may delay enforcement, it is rarely a substantive obstacle.

Public order and Sharia considerations

Public order remains the most significant enforcement issue in Saudi Arabia. In construction and infrastructure disputes, this most often arises in relation to interest on late payments or damages characterised as speculative or uncertain.

Interest is particularly sensitive. As a general rule, Saudi courts will not enforce awards that include interest, as this is considered contrary to Sharia principles.

Two points nonetheless offer practical reassurance. First, the Enforcement Court is not entitled to reassess the tribunal’s reasoning or revisit the damages analysis. Its role is limited to determining whether enforcement would breach public order.

Second, Saudi courts have previously allowed partial enforcement of foreign awards. In practice, award creditors often waive interest or other non‑compliant elements so that the principal sums awarded can be enforced.

For contractors and developers, this presents a strategic choice between preserving the full award on paper and maximising recovery in practice.

Interim measures

Although Saudi courts do not enforce foreign interim measures, they may grant precautionary attachment in certain circumstances, even where the underlying dispute is being arbitrated abroad.

Precautionary attachment allows a claimant to secure assets pending resolution of the dispute. To obtain such relief, the applicant typically must show the existence of a due and evidenced debt, a legitimate risk justifying urgent protection, and compliance with procedural requirements, including filing the substantive claim within the prescribed timeframe.

Courts may also require the applicant to provide security to protect the respondent against losses arising from wrongful attachment.

For contractors concerned about asset dissipation during lengthy arbitrations, precautionary attachment can be an effective tactical tool if pursued carefully and at an early stage.

No enforcement of foreign interim or injunctive relief

Saudi law draws a clear distinction between final awards and interim measures. There is currently no mechanism to recognise or enforce interim or injunctive relief issued by foreign courts or arbitral tribunals.

As a result, injunctions granted under the UK’s Arbitration Act 1996 or pursuant to the LCIA Rules, including freezing or preservation orders, will not be enforceable in Saudi Arabia.

Practical lessons for contractors and developers

For parties contracting with Saudi counterparties, particularly on major infrastructure and energy projects, enforcement strategy should be considered well before a dispute reaches the award stage.

Considerations should include:

• ensuring strict compliance with due process throughout the arbitration;
• anticipating public order objections, particularly in relation to interest and damages;
• ·obtaining confirmation of finality promptly once an award is issued; and
• considering precautionary attachment where there is a real risk of asset dissipation.

While enforcement in Saudi Arabia presents unique challenges, the courts have shown an increasing willingness to enforce foreign arbitral awards, particularly those governed under the New York Convention. A pragmatic approach, focused on recoverability rather than formal entitlement, remains the most effective way to turn a favourable LCIA award into real commercial value.