From Online Dispute Resolution to Small Claims Arbitration: What the SCCA’s 2026 Reform Reveals About the Future of Low-Value Arbitration

On 1 August 2026, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (“SCCA”) announced the replacement of the Online Dispute Resolution (“ODR”) Procedure Rules (“Old Procedure Rules”) with an entirely new Small Claim Procedure Rules (“New Procedure Rules”).

At first glance, the change may appear largely cosmetic. Both procedures apply to circumstances where the amount in dispute does not exceed SAR 200,000 (including counterclaims, crossclaims and claims for set-off), with Arabic as the default language of the proceeding and Riyadh as the default place of arbitration. Both provide for a sole arbitrator, favour written proceedings, contemplate remote hearings where necessary, and require an award to be issued within 30 days. Viewed solely through this lens, the new Appendix appears to preserve much of its predecessor’s structure.

A closer examination, however, reveals that the reform is far more substantive. The replacement of the Old Procedure Rules represents a shift in institutional philosophy: from a procedure centered on the use of technology to one centered on procedural proportionality. Rather than regulating how low-value disputes should be conducted through an online platform, the New Procedure Rules ensure that such disputes are resolved through a simplified, integrated, and cost-effective arbitral process. In doing so, the SCCA aligns itself with a broader international movement towards proportionate dispute resolution. At the same time, it recognises that digital communication has become a normal feature of modern arbitration rather than a procedural innovation requiring separate regulation.

From Technology-Centred to Procedure-Centred Arbitration

Perhaps the most striking feature of the New Procedure Rules is what has been omitted. The Old Procedure Rules were built around the SCCA’s dedicated ODR platform. Requests for arbitration, answers, counterclaims, notices, payment of fees, and virtually all procedural communications were required to be made through that platform. The Old Procedure Rules even contained a separate provision allocating the risks associated with the use of the platform, including issues relating to security, privacy, confidentiality, technological adequacy, and exclusion of liability.

None of these provisions appear in the New Procedure Rules. Instead, communications may be made through any electronic filing system operated by the SCCA, by email, or by any other method permitted under the SCCA Arbitration Rules (“Arbitration Rules”). The New Procedure Rules therefore abandon a platform-specific approach in favour of technology-neutral procedural flexibility.

This development reflects an important evolution in institutional thinking. When the Old Procedure Rules were introduced, dedicated online dispute resolution platforms were often regarded as distinctive procedural innovations requiring their own legal framework. Today, electronic filing, virtual hearings, and digital communication have become standard features of arbitration practice. Against this backdrop, maintaining a separate procedural regime tied to a specific technological platform appears increasingly unnecessary. Rather than regulating technology, the SCCA now regulates procedure.

Automatic Application Reflects a New Institutional Philosophy

The New Procedure Rules also fundamentally alter the circumstances in which the simplified procedure applies. Article 1(1) of the Old Procedure Rules stated that they “shall apply where the parties agree in writing, and where the sum in dispute does not exceed SAR 200,000, representing the aggregate amount in claims, exclusive any costs of arbitration.” Consequently, the procedure remained optional, and many disputes that would have benefited from a simplified process likely continued under the Arbitration Rules.

The New Procedure Rules adopt the opposite approach. Article 1(1) therein provide that “By agreeing to arbitration under the Rules, the parties accept that these Small Claims Procedures shall apply when the total amount in dispute does not exceed SAR 200,000, representing the aggregate of all claims, exclusive of any costs of arbitration.” Importantly, the reform does not merely reverse the default position; it also introduces an express opt-out, allowing the Administrator (the SCCA, acting in that capacity) or the parties after consulting the tribunal to determine that the New Procedure Rules should not apply, in which case the arbitration may proceed under either the Expedited Procedure Rules (Appendix II to the Arbitration Rules) or the Arbitration Rules. This is more than a procedural amendment—it reflects a deliberate policy choice that proportionality should no longer depend upon party election.

Simplified procedures are most effective when routinely applied to the disputes for which they are designed. Requiring parties to opt in often results in the very disputes that most need efficient procedures continuing under more elaborate procedural frameworks.

Greater Integration Within the Arbitration Rules

The Old Procedure Rules functioned largely as a self-contained procedural regime. While certain provisions of the Arbitration Rules continued to apply, the Old Procedure Rules frequently repeated procedural requirements and established separate mechanisms tailored specifically to online proceedings.

The New Procedure Rules adopt a markedly different approach. Rather than operating independently, they expressly supplement the Arbitration Rules, providing that the Arbitration Rules continue to apply except where inconsistent with the New Procedure Rules. This produces a more coherent procedural framework while avoiding unnecessary duplication. The integration becomes particularly evident when a dispute ceases to be suitable as a small claim under the New Procedure Rules. Under the Old Procedure Rules, when they no longer applied, the arbitration simply continued under the Arbitration Rules. The New Procedure Rules introduce considerably greater procedural sophistication. Where the Administrator determines, on its own initiative or at a party’s request and after consulting the tribunal, that the New Procedure Rules should no longer apply, the arbitration may continue under the Expedited Procedure Rules, which apply to disputes exceeding SAR 200,000 but not exceeding SAR 4,000,000, or, where appropriate, the Arbitration Rules. In either case, the existing tribunal remains in place unless the parties agree otherwise or, where the Arbitration Rules apply, the SCCA Court considers replacement or reconstitution appropriate under Article 16.

This creates a graduated procedural framework under the Arbitration Rules, with the New Procedure Rules providing a streamlined mechanism for lower-value disputes and the Expedited Procedure Rules offering an intermediate level of procedural flexibility for disputes exceeding SAR 200,000 but not exceeding SAR 4,000,000.

Procedural Certainty and Active Case Management

Another notable development is the increased emphasis on structured case management. The New Procedure Rules retain several of the key timelines found in the Old Procedure Rules. According to Article 3, the Respondent continues to have 10 days to submit its Answer and any counterclaim, with the Claimant given a further 10 days to respond to a registered counterclaim. Similarly, the two-business-day period for challenging an arbitrator is retained in Article 5(3)(a), as is the 30-day period for issuing the final award in Article 9 and the provision that any hearing should ordinarily not exceed one day in Article 8(3). The significance of the New Procedure Rules therefore lies less in shortening these existing deadlines than in providing greater procedural clarity around the conduct of the arbitration. In particular, Article 8(1) provides that the tribunal must now issue a procedural order within five days of its constitution. Similarly, when the appointment of the arbitrator is challenged, Article 5(3)(b) requires the other party to provide comments on the challenge within one business day.

Greater Cost Transparency

The New Procedure Rules also provide greater clarity as to the costs of small claims arbitration. Under the Old Procedure Rules, the applicable fees were set out in the separate SCCA ODR Fee Schedule, comprising a non-refundable SAR 1,000 filing fee, a SAR 1,000 administrative fee and a non-refundable SAR 7,000 arbitrator fee. The filing fee also applied to counterclaims, set-offs and crossclaims, while Article 10(2)(d) required the parties to advance hearing costs equally, subject to reallocation in the final award. By contrast, Article 10 of the New Procedure Rules establishes a more defined upfront cost structure: the claimant pays a SAR 1,000 non-refundable registration fee and advances SAR 9,000, comprising a SAR 1,000 administrative fee and SAR 8,000 tribunal fee, while a counterclaim attracts a separate SAR 1,000 registration fee and SAR 2,000 tribunal fee.

Simplification Through Omission

Equally significant are the provisions that have been omitted. For example, (a) Article 2(2) of the Old Procedure Rules which required a representative filing a Request for Arbitration to provide a Power of Attorney confirming their authority to act, (b) Article 10(2)(c) which restricted the recording of hearings without the consent of all parties and the arbitrator, and (c) Article 3(4) which provided that a claim would be deemed denied where no Answer was filed have all been omitted from the New Procedure Rules. Article 11(3) of the Old Procedure Rules required the arbitrator to submit a draft award to the SCCA for review as to form before issuance, with the final award transmitted to the parties through the ODR Platform. Article 11(5) further addressed the filing or registration of awards where required by applicable law. Article 12 of the Old Procedure Rules, which dealt extensively with the suitability, adequacy, security, privacy and confidentiality risks of the ODR Platform and related exclusions of liability, has likewise been removed. The New Procedure Rules also make a substantive procedural choice in Article 8(2) by expressly disapplying Article 26 of the Arbitration Rules on the early disposition of claims or defences.

The removal of these provisions appears deliberate rather than accidental and avoids repetition and redundancy. Concerning the ODR Platform the provisions were redundant following the abandonment of a platform-specific procedural framework. The result is a more concise Appendix focused on procedural essentials rather than technological infrastructure.

Looking Ahead

The New Procedure Rules represent considerably more than a mere change in terminology. Rather than treating ODR as a distinct procedural category, the SCCA has recognised that digital communication has become part of the ordinary fabric of arbitration. The focus therefore shifts from the technology through which disputes are conducted to the proportionality with which they are resolved. By making simplified procedures automatic, integrating them within the broader architecture of the Arbitration Rules, introducing greater procedural certainty, and removing unnecessary technological prescriptions, the SCCA has modernised its approach to low-value disputes in a manner that reflects contemporary arbitral practice.