The Limits of Judicial Support for Foreign Provisional and Conservatory Measures in Saudi Arabia

Abstract

The topic of supporting foreign provisional and conservatory measures, where they relate to a right due for performance and of a determined amount, is a delicate procedural issue in cross-border litigation in Saudi Arabia. This sensitivity arises because Saudi law does not provide a specific framework for such measures under the Enforcement Law, while recognition and enforcement are largely directed to final foreign judgments and those treated as equivalent. Accordingly, this study clarifies the legal basis that enables a litigant holding a foreign provisional or conservatory measure, or a person in an equivalent position, to seek its support within the Kingdom, relying on Article 29 of the Law of Civil Procedure, in connection with the finality requirement under the Enforcement Law (particularly Articles 9–11), and the relevant provisions of the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation. The study adopts an analytical method, supported by a simplified comparative approach to identify deficiencies, areas of integration, and possible solutions, with particular reference to English and Swiss legislation and certain American practices. It concludes that, like most comparative systems including the English system, the Saudi legislator distinguishes between domestic and foreign measures: while some domestic measures may exceptionally be enforced through the enforcement judge when they fall within urgent jurisdiction, the same exception is not extended to foreign measures. The study argues that this approach is inconsistent with contemporary needs; although the default rule is non-enforcement of foreign judgments, judicial cooperation and reciprocity have led most systems to adopt recognition and enforcement mechanisms, and these measures share the same preventive purpose. Denying them enforceable effect may therefore defeat their practical benefit and prolong proceedings without justification. The study recommends an explicit framework for foreign measures, assigning related requests to the enforcement judge where a sufficient local nexus exists, with robust procedural safeguards, and encouraging agreements with relevant states to establish an organized regime that strengthens the Kingdom’s position in private international law and enhances its investment attractiveness.