MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Marco Tulio Venegas, LITREDI
This created an imbalance that undercut the practical value of arbitration and prompted calls for reform from both practitioners and scholars. III. A doctrinal breakthrough: provisional relief in post-award proceedings In the judicial precedent Tesis Aislada I.16o.C.4 C (11a.), the Collegiate Court decisively shifted course, in stating that interim injunctive relief may be grant - ed in a special proceeding concerning commercial transactions and arbitration for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award. The Court held that nothing in the language of Article 1425 prohibits a judge from granting provisional relief after an arbitral award has been issued. On the contrary, such relief is both appropriate and necessary within the special proceeding for recognition and enforcement, given that the award’s res judicata effects remain suspend - ed pending judicial acknowledgement. The Court emphasised that: • the absence of an express prohibition should not be construed as an implied restriction; • the procedural mechanism for recognition and enforcement serves to give full legal effect to a binding award, and therefore must be equipped with tools to preserve that outcome; and • from a teleological perspective, provisional meas - ures are indispensable in safeguarding the right to effective judicial protection and ensuring the enforceability of arbitral decisions. This ruling therefore repositions provisional relief as a legitimate and essential instrument in the post-award enforcement toolkit. The Court’s reasoning reflects a modern and pragmat - ic understanding of arbitration’s goals. By embracing a purpose-based interpretation of Article 1425, it rec - ognises that the provision was never meant to under - mine the right to judicial protection after the award. In fact, similar interpretations have been embraced in jurisdictions such as Germany, Singapore and France, where courts regularly allow for provisional measures to be granted in aid of enforcement of foreign or domestic awards.
Moreover, the decision brings Mexican law into closer alignment with the UNCITRAL Model Law (2006 revi - sion), which permits courts to grant interim measures not only during arbitration, but also in support of its outcomes. While Article 17 of the Model Law focuses on the tribunal’s power, Articles 9 and 17J affirm that national courts retain the power to grant interim meas - ures, whether before or after an award. In this sense, the Mexican court has not created new law, but rather harmonised domestic interpretation with prevailing international norms. The recognition that the effectiveness of an arbitral award depends on the ability to protect its future enforceability underscores the idea that post-award relief is not exceptional – it is integral to the arbitra - tion process. IV. Transformative implications for arbitration in Mexico a) Closing a critical enforcement gap By authorising precautionary measures post-award, this precedent eliminates a systemic deficiency that previously rendered enforcement proceedings vulner - able to frustration. It enables prevailing parties to neu - tralise asset flight or concealment, thereby enhancing the certainty and credibility of arbitration as a means of final dispute resolution. This development is not merely procedural – it sig - nifies a reimagining of the institutional support that national courts must provide to the arbitral process. In the past, the inability to obtain precautionary meas - ures during the enforcement phase effectively left the prevailing party without meaningful recourse to pre - serve assets. While arbitral tribunals themselves may order interim measures during the pendency of pro - ceedings, their enforcement typically requires judicial co-operation. Once an award is rendered, however, many jurisdictions traditionally saw no room for court- ordered interim relief. This gap – between the finality of the award and the uncertain timeline for its enforce - ment – has often incentivised debtors to hide or dis - sipate assets. Therefore, this precedent emerges as a response to a practical and recurring challenge. It sends a signal that the Mexican judiciary is ready to engage more
549 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook