When Does Exercising a Right Become Abusive Under Saudi Law?
Holding a legal right does not mean that its holder has absolute freedom in how to exercise it. A right may be legally established, yet its exercise may become abusive if it exceeds its legitimate purpose or is used to harm others.
The Saudi Civil Transactions Law establishes a clear framework for this issue, balancing the protection of rights with the prevention of their misuse.
The general rule: lawful exercise of a right does not give rise to liability.
Civil Transactions Law Articles 28–29 distinguish lawful exercise and abuse. Article 28 provides:
“A person who exercises their right lawfully shall not be liable for any harm arising from that exercise.”
Accordingly, the mere occurrence of harm is not sufficient to establish liability. The relevant test is whether the right was exercised within its limits and in a lawful manner.
When is the exercise of a right abusive?
Article (29) of the Law prohibits the abusive exercise of rights and identifies three principal cases:
Where the sole purpose of exercising the right is to harm another person.
Where the benefit derived from exercising the right is wholly disproportionate to the harm suffered by another person.
Where the right is exercised for a purpose other than that for which it was established or to achieve an unlawful objective.
This demonstrates the distinction between the existence of a right and the lawfulness of exercising it. A right may be established, while the manner or purpose of its exercise may be subject to accountability.
The Sharia basis of the principle:
The prohibition of abusive exercise of rights is consistent with the principles of Islamic Sharia, foremost among them the rule “There shall be neither harm nor reciprocating harm,” together with related rules intended to prevent and eliminate harm.
This reflects the harmony between Saudi civil regulation and Sharia principles, which prohibit using rights as a means of harming others.
How is abuse established before the courts?
It is not sufficient to allege that the other party abused their right. The facts and indicators placing the conduct within one of the cases specified by law must be established.
This may include proving an intent to cause harm, a lack of proportionality between the benefit and the harm, or exercise of the right for a purpose other than its lawful purpose or to achieve an unlawful objective.
Accordingly, the strength of an abuse claim depends on connecting the facts and evidence to the legal standard applicable to the case.
What is the effect of establishing abuse?
If the abusive exercise of a right is established, the abusive party may be liable for the harm resulting from their conduct, including compensation where its requirements are satisfied. Depending on the nature of the dispute and the applicable legal provisions, it may also result in preventing the harmful conduct, removing its effect, or disregarding the effect resulting from it.
There is no single remedy applicable to all cases of abuse. Rather, the legal effect is determined according to the nature of the right, the conduct, the harm, and the claims submitted to the court.
How does abuse appear in contracts and commercial transactions?
This principle becomes increasingly important in commercial relationships, particularly where a contract grants one party a right or authority that affects the other party.
Depending on the circumstances of each case, abuse may arise in practical forms such as:
Enforcing a liquidated damages clause in a manner that exceeds its legitimate purpose.
Exercising the right to terminate a contract with the intention of harming the other party or achieving an unlawful objective.
Refusing to sign or deliver despite the existence of a contractual or legal obligation to do so.
Exercising a contractual authority for a purpose different from that for which it was granted.
These acts do not constitute abuse merely because they occur. Each case must be assessed in light of the contract, the governing law, the source of the right, its purpose, the manner in which it was exercised, and the resulting harm.
Accordingly:
Saudi law protects lawful rights, but it does not protect their abusive exercise. Not every harm resulting from the exercise of a right gives rise to liability, just as the existence of a right does not justify using it to harm others or achieve an unlawful objective.
When a dispute arises, the question is not only:
Does the person hold this right?
It is also:
How did they exercise it, and for what purpose?