CHILE Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ricardo Vásquez, Juan Araya Allende and Álvaro Jara Burotto, Vásquez Urra Abogados
The majority drew a sharp distinction between debating the amount of loss and authorising a dif - ferent cause of action. Evidence that is relevant to damages does not, by itself, expand the legal claim into restitution or price reduction. • Fourth, the split decision confirms that Chilean set-aside law remains contested at the boundary between permissible legal recharacterisation and excess of mandate. Until higher or repeated appel - late guidance settles the point, counsel on both sides will continue to fight over whether an arbitral tribunal merely applied the law to pleaded facts or substituted an unpleaded remedy with different legal consequences. Why the case matters beyond the immediate parties Chile continues to present itself as an arbitration- friendly seat, and Law No. 19,971 is built on a mini - mum-intervention model aligned with the UNCITRAL framework and the New York Convention tradition. This set-aside decision does not reverse that orienta - tion. It does, however, show that Chilean courts will intervene where they consider that an award has gone beyond the scope of the dispute the parties actually submitted. For foreign investors, sellers and buyers using the Chilean-seated Arbitration and Mediation Centre of the Santiago Chamber of Commerce (“CAM Santiago”) or other international arbitrations subject to review by Chilean annulment courts, the case is a reminder that pleading strategy, remedy election and the contractual allocation of risk are closely intertwined. In complex M&A disputes, winning on a warranty narrative is not the end of the analysis. The legally sustainable rem - edy, and its fit with the SPA, may determine not only the award but also whether that award survives court review. In July 2026, a new request was filed with CAM San - tiago to restart the arbitration proceedings. Is there any further remedy following an action for annulment? No. Once the Appellate Court has ruled on the action for annulment, the process is closed. No appeal on points of law or complaint may be lodged with the Supreme Court to challenge the decision issued at
that level. The Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly declared all attempts to open a new stage of review to be inadmissible, from 2013 to the present day. This has a very significant practical consequence: if the award was not challenged within the three-month time limit, or if the action for annulment was dismissed, the award becomes final and may be enforced without further delay. It is not possible to defer its enforcement through successive challenges. How is an Award Issued in Another Country Enforced in Chile? Chile recognises foreign arbitral awards through a pro - cedure known as exequatur, which is conducted by the Supreme Court. This procedure does not involve a review of the merits of the case; the court merely verifies that certain formal requirements are met and that the award does not contravene Chilean public policy. Through this mechanism of judicial review, the Supreme Court determines whether a foreign deci - sion satisfies the requirements established under Chilean law to be recognised and, where appropriate, enforced within Chile. The New York Convention and Law No. 19,971 con - stitute the legal framework governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Chile. Together, these instruments are generally understood to prevail over the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code in matters concerning the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In practice, exequatur is granted with relative ease. In a recent case from 2025 (Case No. 1,647-2025), the Supreme Court authorised the enforcement of an award issued in London without difficulty, having established that the respondent had had the oppor - tunity to participate in the arbitration proceedings and that there was no breach of public policy. The court did not examine whether the outcome was fair or cor - rect. For foreign companies operating in Chile, this regime provides an important safeguard: if they obtain a favourable award abroad, they can enforce it in Chile with a low risk of it being blocked by the local courts.
233 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook