CHILE Law and Practice Contributed by: Andrés Jana, Rodrigo Gil, Francisco Grob and Victoria Demarchi, Jana & Gil Dispute Resolution
held that parties may waive the possibility of challeng - ing an award in advance (Supreme Court, Case No 7854-2013 dated 21 April 2016). On 24 June 2026, the Santiago Court of Appeal issued the first decision annulling an international arbitral award seated in Chile (Australis Seafoods dispute, CAM Santiago, Case No A-5484-2023). The Court, by majority, set aside the award in its entirety pursuant to Article 34 (2)(a)(iii) of the ICAL, holding that the tribunal had exceeded the scope of the arbitration agreement by replacing the claimant’s pleaded damages claim with an unpleaded quanti minoris remedy (partial resti - tution of the purchase price). The decision was issued over the dissent of one member of the Court (Santiago Court of Appeal, Case No Civil-17067-2025, 24 June 2026). Varying Recourse Based on Principles of Free Will and Good Faith In 2020, in an entirely exceptional ruling, the Supreme Court allowed parties to modify the recourse regime based on the principles of party autonomy and good faith. The parties had agreed in their arbitration agree - ment that appeals and cassation appeals would be permitted against the final award. The court of appeal rejected the appeal against the arbitration award, determining that – according to the appeal – ICAL rules were applicable, meaning only an annulment action could be filed against the award. The requesting party filed a complaint appeal, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court invalidated the court of appeal’s decision, stating that – due to the principles of party autonomy and good faith – parties may modify the recourse regime (Supreme Court, Case No 19568- 2020 dated 14 September 2020). 11.2 Excluding/Expanding the Scope of Appeal Although it is not a developed discussion, accord - ing to the new jurisprudential twist adopted by the Supreme Court (see 11.1 Grounds for Appeal ), just as it is recognised that the parties may vary the system of remedies on the basis of free will and good faith, they may also agree to exclude or expand the scope
of appeal or challenge under the national law based on the foregoing principles. 11.3 Standard of Judicial Review As mentioned in 11.1 Grounds for Appeal , the motion for annulment is structured on the basis of specific grounds that point to the examination or external review of the award and not to the merits or content of the decision on the merits.
12. Enforcement of an Award 12.1 New York Convention
Chile was among the first Latin American states to ratify the New York Convention in 1975. In Chile, the New York Convention applies to all foreign arbitral awards without exception, as Chile did not make the reciprocity reservation contained in Article I(3) of the New York Convention. 12.2 Enforcement Procedure Enforcing Awards The enforcement of international arbitral awards based in Chile is regulated in Articles 35 and 36 of the ICAL. Under Article 35 of the ICAL, an arbitral award shall be considered as binding, irrespective of the country in which such award was issued. Enforcement is requested before the competent civil court, and the party against whom enforcement is sought may raise the exceptions contained in Article 36 of the ICAL, which establishes the standards for recognition or enforcement of international arbitral awards. Examples of such exceptions include: • incapacity of the parties or lack of validity of the arbitration agreement; • lack of notification of the executed party; • exceeding the provisions of the arbitration agree - ment; • when the subject matter of the dispute is not sus - ceptible to arbitration; and • when the execution would be contrary to Chilean public policy.
225 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook