Claim management & contract disputes
The anchor capability. We prepare, quantify and negotiate claims under Saudi public and private contracts — and manage disputes to a commercial resolution rather than an open-ended process.
The anchor of the practice is claim management and contract disputes — protecting value when performance, payment or scope is contested. Around it sit the studies and reviews that give boards the numbers behind hard decisions: feasibility, market assessment, and financial and operational performance.
The anchor capability. We prepare, quantify and negotiate claims under Saudi public and private contracts — and manage disputes to a commercial resolution rather than an open-ended process.
Decision-grade analysis of whether a project, market or investment carries its own weight — built on Saudi data, read with European rigour, and stated without hedging.
Independent reviews of performance, cost and organisation — for owners, boards and investors who need the position stated plainly before they act.
We establish the facts of the contract and the record — what was agreed, what happened, and what it is worth.
We build the claim or the review on numbers that survive scrutiny from the other side of the table.
We put your position to the counterparty, in the language and manner the Saudi system expects.
We drive to a commercial settlement — and prepare the formal route if one is needed.
As early as possible. The sooner the record is built properly, the stronger the position — ideally before the dispute hardens.
Yes. We prepare the technical and quantum analysis and support your appointed lawyers; our senior engineers have been appointed by Saudi courts as technical experts. The scope of any formal engagement is confirmed per matter.
No — it is a decision. We state whether the project carries its own weight, and why, in terms a board can act on.
It varies with the record, the counterparty and the route. A claim built on a clean record and quantified early typically resolves commercially in months; a poorly documented one can outlast the project. Early involvement is the single biggest accelerator.
Yes. A rejection is often a verdict on the submission, not on the entitlement. We reassess the record, rebuild the quantification and reopen the discussion where grounds exist.
Both sides of the market — whichever party’s contract value is at risk. Conflicts are checked before any mandate is accepted.
In practice
Saudi contracts give more room for well-founded claims than most parties use. Public contracts sit under the Government Tenders and Procurement Law: GTPL Articles 68–69 and the Implementing Regulations provide for price adjustment and compensation in defined events. Private contracts lean on Article 97 of the Civil Transactions Law and on the contract’s own variation and claims machinery. Entitlement always turns on the specific contract and the record behind it.
The recurring levers are practical, not exotic: escalation in materials, services and labour; transport and fuel; insurance premiums; and regulatory change, including environmental compliance. Each is claimable only as well as it is evidenced — which is why the contemporaneous record matters more than the argument.
What decides the outcome is discipline: a record built while the work runs, quantification that survives scrutiny from the other side of the table, submission within the contract’s notice periods, and negotiation conducted in the manner the Saudi system expects. Most well-prepared claims never need a formal route — they settle commercially, which is usually where the client’s interest lies.
Describe the contract and the position. A senior partner replies — in confidence.