MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Jorge Asali, Omar Colomé, Rodrigo Macin and Saul Fonseca, Bufete Asali
ment, and the court must rule on the request without delay, ensuring the right to be heard and deferring to arbitration unless the agreement is clearly inva - lid or unenforceable. This has been recognised in “ REMISIÓN AL ARBITRAJE INTERNACIONAL. EL PROCEDIMIENTO PREVISTO …”(Registro digital: 2021255), and” REMISIÓN AL ARBITRAJE. PUEDE SOLICITARSE EN CUALQUIER ETAPA…“ (Registro digital: 2021586). In summary, arbitration agreements are routinely enforced by Mexican courts, and the judiciary has played a central role in making Mexico a reliable, arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. 3.4 Validity Under Mexican law, an arbitration clause may still be considered valid even if the contract in which it is con - tained is invalid. This is because Mexican arbitration law expressly recognises the principle of separability of the arbitration agreement. Article 1432 of the Commerce Code, which largely mirrors Article 16 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, pro - vides that an arbitration clause is legally independ - ent from the rest of the contract. This means that the tribunal’s jurisdiction does not automatically fall away if the contract is alleged to be void, illegal, or termi - nated. In practical terms, even if a party argues that the main contract is invalid or has no legal effect, the arbitra - tion clause can survive and remain enforceable. This allows arbitrators to determine the validity of the underlying contract as part of their jurisdiction, with - out needing prior judicial confirmation.
This autonomy allows parties to agree not only on the number of arbitrators but also on the method of selection, including qualifications, nationality, or spe - cific expertise. 4.2 Default Procedures Mexican law provides a default procedure for the appointment of arbitrators when the parties’ agreed method fails. These rules are found in Articles 1426 and 1427 of the Commerce Code. If the parties have not agreed on the method of appointment, the following apply. • The default number of arbitrators is one (not three, as in the Model Law), as provided in Article 1426. • Under Article 1427, if a sole arbitrator is to be appointed and the parties cannot agree, either par - ty may request the appointment by a state court. • In the case of a three-member tribunal, each party appoints one arbitrator, and the two party- appointed arbitrators then select the third. If any of these appointments fail, a party may request court assistance to complete the tribunal. Mexican law does not contain specific provisions addressing the appointment of arbitrators in multi - party arbitrations. In the absence of agreement among all parties, the default rules under Article 1427 apply. However, these rules assume a bilateral structure and may be difficult to apply directly in multiparty sce - narios. 4.3 Court Intervention Courts can intervene in the selection of arbitrators, but only in limited circumstances and in accordance with the rules set out in Article 1427 of the Commerce Code. Intervention is allowed when the parties’ agreed method fails – for example, if a party does not appoint an arbitrator within the designated time, or if the two party-appointed arbitrators cannot agree on the third arbitrator. In such cases, either party may request a state court to make the necessary appointment. 4.4 Challenge and Removal of Arbitrators The Mexican Commerce Code provides specific rules for challenging and removing arbitrators in Articles
4. The Arbitral Tribunal 4.1 Limits on Selection
There are no statutory limits on the parties’ autonomy to select arbitrators under Mexican law. Article 1427 of the Commerce Code, which corresponds to Article 11 of the UNCITRAL Model Law, expressly recognises the parties’ freedom to determine the number of arbi - trators and the procedure for their appointment.
537 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook