SCCA's New 2026 Mediation Rules: What's Changed

Global Mediation Trends

Saudi Arabia's New Mediation Rules: What the SCCA's 2026 Overhaul Means for Cross-Border Disputes

DC Mediation & Dispute Resolution Institute  |  Insights on Alternative Dispute Resolution

Ten years after first adopting mediation rules, the Saudi Center for Commercial Arbitration (SCCA) has rolled out a significantly updated framework. The new SCCA Mediation Rules, effective 1 August 2026, replace the original 2016 edition with a more detailed, modernized structure — and they offer a useful case study for anyone tracking how mediation institutions worldwide are adapting to cross-border commerce, digital dispute resolution, and the growing influence of the Singapore Convention on Mediation.

For practitioners, in-house counsel, and mediators who work with parties in the Gulf region — or simply want to see where institutional mediation is heading — here's what's changed and why it matters, including for disputes we see much closer to home here in the DC Metro area.

A Framework Built for Speed and Certainty

One of the most practical shifts in the new Rules is the emphasis on timelines. Mediators are now expected to convene a pre-mediation conference within 14 days of appointment, exchange key documents 14 days before the substantive mediation conference, and make reasonable efforts to conclude the entire mediation within 60 days of appointment. If parties can't agree on a mediator within 10 days of commencement, the SCCA can step in and appoint one directly.

This isn't just bureaucratic tidiness. Mediation's core selling point over litigation or arbitration is speed, and institutions that fail to build enforceable timelines into their rules risk letting mediations drift indefinitely. The SCCA's approach signals a clear institutional preference: keep the process moving, or let someone end it.

The Standout Feature: Unilateral Termination

Perhaps the most significant substantive change is buried in Article 16. Under the new Rules, any single party — not just the mediator, and not by mutual agreement — can terminate the mediation simply by declaring in writing that, in its own view, a settlement cannot be reached. This holds true regardless of any mediation period the parties previously agreed to.

Mediation is fundamentally about party self-determination — the Rules define it explicitly as parties making "free and informed choices as to both the process and the outcome." If a party genuinely believes mediation has run its course, the Rules won't force it to keep talking.

Mediators, too, retain this exit valve. A written declaration from the mediator that further efforts "would not contribute to the resolution of the dispute" is enough to end the process — protecting against mediations that limp along past the point of usefulness. This principle of party autonomy is one we hold central to our own practice: our clients always retain control over their own solutions, whatever forum they're mediating in.

Confidentiality, Sharpened

The 2026 Rules significantly reinforce confidentiality protections, an area where institutional mediation rules often get tested in later arbitration or litigation. Article 14 draws a detailed wall around the process:

• Mediators cannot disclose confidential information or documents obtained during mediation, even under compulsion.
• Parties cannot introduce settlement proposals, admissions, or a party's willingness (or unwillingness) to accept a settlement offer as evidence in any later arbitral or judicial proceeding.
• Non-party participants must sign confidentiality agreements before taking part.
• Upon termination, parties must return or permanently delete all materials exchanged during the mediation.

For any organization worried that a failed mediation could later be weaponized in arbitration, this level of specificity is reassuring — and it's a template other institutions may want to study.

Modernizing Settlement Enforcement

The new Rules also address a question that has grown more urgent since the United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the "Singapore Convention") entered into force: how do you prove a settlement actually came out of a proper mediation?

Article 15 now allows electronic signatures on settlement agreements and — notably — permits the mediator or the SCCA itself to issue a declaration confirming that the settlement resulted from an SCCA-administered mediation. That declaration is designed specifically to support enforcement under the Singapore Convention or other applicable law. It's a small procedural addition with outsized practical value for parties trying to enforce a cross-border settlement in a foreign court.

Costs: More Structure, More Flexibility

The fee structure has also been modernized:

• A new fixed SAR 1,000 registration fee applies to every Request for Mediation (non-refundable, but credited toward the claimant's share of administrative fees).
• Administrative and mediator's fees now scale according to a published fee schedule tied to the amount in dispute, ranging from roughly SAR 2,000 up to SAR 100,000+ for high-value disputes, or an hourly rate for mediators who prefer it.
• Where an hourly rate applies, a non-refundable four-hour minimum kicks in regardless of how the mediation ends — an important detail for parties budgeting for a quick, exploratory session.
• The Rules introduce provisional advance deposits, letting the SCCA collect an initial amount to cover early-stage costs before fixing a full advance deposit once the scope of the mediation is clearer.
• Payment can now be made in installments upon request, adding flexibility for parties managing cash flow during a dispute.

Why This Matters Beyond Saudi Arabia

Institutional mediation rules don't operate in a vacuum — they compete with, and learn from, one another. The SCCA's 2026 update reflects broader trends we're seeing across the mediation landscape globally, and increasingly in the matters we handle for individuals, businesses, and organizations across DC, Maryland, and Virginia:

1. Tighter timelines to preserve mediation's speed advantage over arbitration and litigation.
2. Explicit unilateral exit rights, reinforcing that mediation must remain genuinely voluntary to retain legitimacy.
3. Singapore Convention–ready settlement procedures, as more jurisdictions ratify the Convention and enforcement mechanics become a competitive feature of institutional rules.
4. Granular, published fee schedules, giving parties cost certainty before they commit — something that's historically been a friction point in institutional ADR.

For dispute resolution professionals advising clients with cross-border or Gulf-region contracts, these Rules are worth a close read. And for the broader mediation community — including our own clients here in the District — they're a reminder that even well-established institutions continue to refine the balance between structure and party autonomy that makes mediation work.

Facing a dispute of your own?

Whether it's commercial, workplace, family, or community — our mediators help you reach a fair, lasting agreement without the cost and delay of litigation.

Schedule Mediation

The DC Mediation & Dispute Resolution Institute regularly tracks developments in institutional mediation rules worldwide. Have questions about drafting a mediation clause or navigating cross-border settlement enforcement? Get in touch with our team.