CHILE Law and Practice Contributed by: José Miguel Valdivia, Juan Francisco Sánchez, José Tomás Blake and Tomás Izquierdo, Valdivia Legal
be accompanied by an award of damages to the claimant if damages were requested and the claim was proven. Consequently, there are two potential courses of action following the determination of unlawful - ness. If the decision does not involve administra - tive discretion, judges are permitted to annul the decision and may even substitute their judgment for that of the executive branch. Conversely, if the judges determine that a different decision is necessary, they will send the case file back to the original administrative body for reconsid - eration of its initial decision in cases involving discretionary matters. 14. Costs 14.1 Mechanisms to Protect Claimants From Excessive Costs Chilean legislation does not include any spe - cific mechanisms for protecting claimants from excessive litigation costs. The legal framework does not provide safeguards or limits on expens - es that could mitigate the financial burden on claimants during the litigation process. As a result, individuals may face significant financial risks when pursuing legal actions, with limited recourse to address concerns about excessive costs associated with their claims. 14.2 Public Interest Costs There are no provisions in the Chilean legal sys - tem that recognise public interest costs and the concept of public interest costs is therefore not recognised. In general, Chile follows the “loser pays” principle, meaning that the losing party in litigation is typically responsible for covering the legal expenses of the prevailing party. However, this arrangement is ineffective in practice, as the courts do not enforce or adequately compen -
sate for costs, rendering the principle more of a dead letter. Consequently, there are no special rules for costs in public interest cases and courts do not have the discretion to deviate from the standard “loser pays” arrangements. 14.3 Wasted Costs Chilean legislation includes provisions aimed at disincentivising improper, unreasonable or negligent acts of legal representatives, which can lead to wasted costs. Specifically, the legal framework allows for the possibility of recover - ing costs incurred due to this conduct. However, courts often estimate these costs at a very low rate, which diminishes the effectiveness of these provisions and renders it a dead letter in effect. This limitation can make it challenging for parties to seek adequate redress for the inap - propriate actions of their legal representatives. It is possible to appeal a judgment in a chal - lenge to a government decision. Individuals who are dissatisfied with the ruling can initiate the appeals process, which typically involves con - testing the decision before a higher court. This allows for further examination of the case and ensures that any potential errors in the initial rul - The court to which an appeal can be made depends on the specific matter at hand. Most cases can generally be contested before the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court sub - sequently. However, certain issues, such as anti - trust matters, are not allowed to be heard by 15. Appeals 15.1 Right to Appeal ing can be addressed. 15.2 Appeal Forums
99
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook