The case concerned a private-sector employee whose employer filed an urgent application to prevent him from travelling, alleging financial irregularities and an ongoing internal investigation.
CounselO’s defence focused on the principle that a travel ban is an exceptional measure that cannot be ordered merely because allegations or an internal investigation exist. Rather, there must be proof of a genuine risk that the employee will travel and that a specific right will consequently be lost. The documents also showed that the employee had expressed his willingness to return to work, while the company itself had prevented him from resuming his duties despite his employment contract remaining in force.
The court accepted the defence arguments and dismissed the travel ban application, confirming that restricting freedom of movement requires credible evidence and clearly established statutory conditions, not merely unresolved allegations.
Completed
July 2026
Jurisdiction
Saudi Arabia
Work type
Employee Travel Ban Application
Document language
Arabic
Client type
Individual
The matter
**Issue:**
May an employer seek to prevent an employee from travelling merely because of financial allegations and an incomplete internal investigation, without providing clear evidence that the employee intends to leave the Kingdom or that a specific right is at risk of being lost?
**Challenge:**
The challenge was to redirect the court’s attention from the general allegations and internal investigation to the statutory conditions governing travel bans, and to establish that this exceptional measure cannot be justified by mere suspicion or allegation, particularly where evidence showed that the employee was willing to return to work and that the employer had prevented him from resuming his duties.
Work performed
We prepared a concise, professionally drafted legal analysis of the travel ban case involving a private-sector employee. It presented the key facts, identified the legal issue, and explained how CounselO’s team handled the matter.
The work emphasised that the case was not about proving the alleged financial irregularities themselves, but whether the statutory conditions for issuing a travel ban had been satisfied. We also explained that the defence strategy focused on disproving any genuine risk of travel, highlighting the inconsistency in the employer’s position, and relying on correspondence demonstrating the employee’s willingness to return to work.
Outcome or value delivered
CounselO delivered substantial value to the client by protecting his right to travel and freedom of movement and mitigating the impact of the urgent proceedings. This was achieved by building a defence focused on the statutory conditions for imposing a travel ban rather than engaging with allegations whose validity had not yet been established.
The value also lay in transforming a difficult defensive position into a clear legal argument demonstrating the absence of a genuine risk, the inconsistency in the employer’s position, and the lack of any specific right at risk of being lost. This helped secure a practical and direct outcome in the client’s favour.
This sample demonstrates professional experience only. Details may be modified or withheld to protect confidentiality, and past work or outcomes do not guarantee the result of another matter.