As part of its Vision 2030 program, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (“KSA”) has made a concerted effort to modernise and develop its arbitration framework. There had already been encouraging signs of these efforts bearing fruit, with a 2024 study by the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (“SCCA”) reporting that the enforcement rate for arbitral awards in the KSA courts was consistently above 92% between 2017 and 2022.¹

Now a new country report by the SCCA (the “Report”),² which reviews 967 arbitration-related judgments of the Saudi Courts of Appeal issued between 2023 and 2025, reveals continued positive development of the KSA arbitration architecture, and the important role that the KSA courts are playing in this effort. The Report demonstrates that KSA courts have recently taken a modern and pragmatic approach to procedural matters and the incorporation of technology into the arbitral process. An area of particular interest is the broad approach to service of written communications in arbitration proceedings, including notices initiating arbitrations, with service by SMS or WhatsApp message being found valid. This may come as a surprise given the traditional focus on formal service in certain Middle East jurisdictions.³

The KSA courts’ flexible approach is expected to be codified in the draft Saudi Arbitration Law that was released for consultation in September 2025 (the “Draft Law”). This, together with a concerted effort by the KSA authorities to embrace technology in arbitration, has further strengthened KSA’s case as a seat of arbitration.  This reflects a broader and welcome trend across the Gulf, collectively reinforcing the region's standing in international arbitration.

This article examines the procedural and technological developments in the KSA arbitration architecture, with a focus on permitted forms of service.

Service of Arbitral Process in Saudi Arbitration

The current Saudi Arbitration Law starts from a familiar position: unless the parties agree otherwise, written notice should be delivered personally, to a designated representative or to the mailing address identified in the relevant contract, arbitration agreement, or governing document. If that is not possible, notice may be deemed received if sent by registered mail to the recipient’s last-known place of business, habitual residence, or known mailing address.⁴

However, this framework has been applied more flexibly in practice. The Report records decisions in which KSA courts and tribunals treated electronic communications as valid service where they were sent to channels designated or confirmed by the parties.⁵ This included not only notices sent by email, but also those sent by SMS and other instant messaging applications such as WhatsApp. This is a commercially sensible approach which recognises the varied nature of modern business communications.

The Report also indicates that the KSA courts have not embraced technology indiscriminately. In one 2023 case, the Riyadh General Court of Appeal annulled an award where service had been effected by WhatsApp to a mobile number other than the party’s number registered on the Absher platform,⁶ finding that this was defective service which impaired the party's right to be heard.⁷ That qualification reflects a sensible balance: digital service can be effective, but only where the parties have created a reliable record and procedural fairness is preserved.

That judicial approach is reflected in the Draft Law, with Article 8 proposing to modernise the existing service framework.  Traditional methods of service would remain available as the “the primary methods” of service, including personal service, service on a representative, and service to an agreed or specified mailing address.  However, email addresses specified in the contract or arbitration agreement or in the document governing the relationship that is the subject of the arbitration, used in the parties’ dealings, or otherwise communicated between them, would fall within the concept of a specified mailing address for this purpose. Additionally, where the primary methods of service are not possible after reasonable inquiries, Article 8 would also permit deemed service by electronic means to the recipient’s mobile phone or email address.  The express recognition of electronic and mobile notification would provide welcome certainty for arbitral participants.

The take-away is that KSA-seated arbitration accommodates the speed and relative informality of modern commercial communications, while still maintaining due process safeguards. This flexibility is a strong selling-point when counterparties are deciding on the seat of the arbitration.  The contract can then be drafted to reflect this flexibility: parties can identify specific email addresses, mobile numbers, and representatives, and expressly confirm that notice via those channels is valid service. Post-contract, parties should preserve delivery receipts, transmission logs, screenshots, and correspondence confirming the relevant contact details. In a KSA-seated arbitration, good contract administration and robust record keeping can materially reduce the scope for satellite disputes about notice.

Wider use of technology in Saudi Arbitration

The flexible approach to service requirements sits within a wider agenda to modernise the KSA arbitration framework. The Report frames the Kingdom’s progress as the product of mutually reinforcing legislative updates, judicial development, governmental support, capacity-building, and investment in automation, digitalisation, and artificial intelligence.

The SCCA’s 2023 Arbitration Rules, consistent with the rules of other leading international centres, support remote administrative conferences, electronic communication, and modern case management. The SCCA also provides Online Dispute Resolution procedures for smaller claims, with a streamlined process designed for speed and efficiency.

The SCCA launched a digital signature service in June 2025, allowing users to sign arbitration and other ADR documents electronically, including awards, procedural orders, minutes, appointment documents, and party agreements. The SCCA has presented the service as part of its broader digital transformation agenda, from case filing through to the rendering of the arbitral award.

The Draft Law similarly embraces technology. Article 35(2) would expressly permit meetings and hearings by modern technological means, while Article 52(4) would recognise electronic signatures for arbitral awards.

The modernisation effort can have significant commercial consequences. Remote and hybrid hearings can reduce travel cost, speed up procedural timetables, and allow global project teams to participate more efficiently. Electronic filing and digital signatures reduce execution bottlenecks, particularly where arbitrators, counsel, experts, and parties are located in different jurisdictions.

Regional Trends

A comparison between KSA and other seats and centres in the UAE indicates a wider regional trend towards modernising arbitration. 

Onshore UAE

The UAE Federal Arbitration Law (the “FAL”) provides that written communications in arbitral proceedings, including notices of commencement, may be delivered in person or to the relevant business, residence, or mailing address.⁸ Mailing address includes any email address specified in the arbitration agreement or the parties’ contract, or previously used in the parties’ correspondence. However, unlike the Draft Law, the FAL does not expressly address notification by mobile phone.

Article 28 of the FAL permits the parties to conduct arbitration virtually and requires arbitration centres to provide the technology necessary for those proceedings. Article 35 permits witness and expert evidence to be taken virtually. Article 41 recognises that an award may be signed electronically and still be treated as issued at the seat.

DIFC

The DIFC position is developing.  In June 2026, the DIFC Authority issued a consultation paper on proposed amendments to the DIFC Arbitration Law (which the Akin Dubai team was engaged by the DIFC Authority to advise on).⁹ The proposed changes would bring the DIFC Arbitration Law closer to the FAL on several technology-related points, including: (i) validity of electronic communications for service of process; (ii) permission for arbitral hearings to take place remotely; and (iii) recognition of electronic signatures for awards.

Under the existing DIFC framework, which mirrors the standard UNCITRAL Model Law approach, a written communication is deemed received if delivered to the addressee’s business, residence, or mailing address, or, failing that, sent to the last-known address using a method that records attempted delivery.¹⁰ More broadly, the DIFC Arbitration Law is deliberately non‑prescriptive on technology: it does not regulate virtual hearings, electronic awards, or digital communications in detail, with these features typically supplied in practice through the chosen arbitral institution’s procedural rules.  The DIFC/Model Law framework is technology-neutral, so email will generally satisfy the requirement for a “written communication”, but reliance on SMS or WhatsApp is more uncertain and typically requires either clear proof of receipt or express agreement between the parties.

ADGM

The ADGM’s Arbitration Regulations (the “Regulations”) adopt a technology‑neutral approach to service, permitting delivery to an agreed address, including an electronic address, unless the parties provide otherwise.¹¹ While they do not expressly refer to SMS, WhatsApp, or similar platforms, this concept may be broad enough to cover such methods where agreed, though their use is not expressly endorsed for arbitral notices and would typically depend on proof of reliability and recipient identity. This aligns with the ADGM Courts’ approach, which permits service by electronic messaging (including SMS or WhatsApp) in appropriate cases where a sufficient evidential link is established.¹²

The Regulations expressly require tribunals, when adopting suitable procedures, to consider technology for the efficient and expeditious conduct of the arbitration.¹³ The listed examples include document review, signatures, online case-management platforms, and hearings by video conference, telephone, or other communication technology.

Conclusion

KSA is now building a credible and increasingly attractive arbitration offering.  Both the courts and the SCCA have embraced technology in arbitral proceedings, and the Draft Law’s proposed recognition of electronic service and virtual procedure would be a further welcome development.  These technology-related reforms sit alongside broader arbitration-supportive court practice that reports a high rate of award enforcement with limited scope given, in particular, to enforcement challenges based on public policy or Islamic Sharia based objections.  Taken together, these developments add to the competitive depth of the Gulf arbitration landscape.

¹ Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration, SCCA Saudi Case Law Study: Three Years in Review (2024). Accessible at: https://sadr.org/public/upload/media-center/bulletin/SCCA-Saudi-Case-Law-Study-Three-Years-in-Review-En.pdf.

² SCCA, Arbitration in Saudi Arabia: Country Report – Case Law and Legislative Analysis in Light of the UNCITRAL Model Law and Saudi Arbitration Framework (June 2026)

³ That said, efforts towards recognition of electronic service have also been afoot in other jurisdictions in the region.  For example, UAE Court procedure has moved towards a broader acceptance of electronic service.  See Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022 Promulgating the Civil Procedure Code, Arts. 8 and 328, which recognise service and exchange of documents through modern communication technology in civil procedures; see also Dubai Court of Cassation, Commercial Appeal No. 317 of 2026, 26 March 2026, where the Court upheld email service where the notification reached, or was deemed to have reached, the recipient.

⁴ KSA Arbitration Law 2012, Article 6.

⁵ SCCA, Arbitration in Saudi Arabia, pp. 45-46.

⁶ Absher is an electronic platform operated by the Saudi Ministry of Interior that provides services to citizens, residents, and visitors, including official registration of mobile numbers for communication and service delivery.

⁷ SCCA, Arbitration in Saudi Arabia, p. 46, discussing Case No. 4430985146, Riyadh General Court of Appeal, June 15, 2023.

⁸ UAE Federal Law No. 6 of 2018 on Arbitration (as amended), Article 24.

⁹ DIFC Consultation Paper No.2 of 2026.

¹⁰ DIFC Arbitration Law – Law No.1 of 2008, Article 8

¹¹ ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 (as amended), Regulation 10.

¹² ADGM Courts Practice Direction 6.

¹³ ADGM Arbitration Regulations 2015 (as amended), Regulation 34(5).