Litigation Dispute Resolution Comparative Guide

1 Legal framework

1.1 What system of jurisprudence applies in your jurisdiction? What implications does this have for litigation?

Mexico follows a civil law tradition, rooted in Roman-Germanic legal principles, as opposed to the common law system. The primary source of law is written legislation, mainly through federal and local codes and statutes. Case law – particularly that issued by the Supreme Court and federal appellate courts – becomes binding only when it meets specific requirements under the Amparo Law, which regulates the constitutional review of acts by authorities.

This framework has several implications for litigation:

• Proceedings are largely written, although recent reforms have introduced oral proceedings for several matters, such as civil, commercial, criminal and labour matters.
• Unlike in common law jurisdictions, judicial precedents are not automatically binding, which can result in less predictability in judicial outcomes, particularly in complex or novel cases.

Mexico has a dual judicial system, with federal and local courts:

• Federal judges hear matters expressly assigned by the Constitution or federal law (eg, amparo, IP rights, competition); and
• Local judges handle most civil and commercial disputes.

In commercial matters, there is concurrent jurisdiction, meaning that both federal and local courts may hear the case at the plaintiff's election, unless a specific law grants exclusive jurisdiction to one of them.

Finally, a landmark 2011 constitutional reform strengthened the application of international human rights treaties and introduced the principle of 'conventionality control', which obliges all authorities – including judges – to interpret domestic law in light of international human rights standards. This has opened the door to more rights-based and strategic litigation, particularly in matters involving constitutional or international law questions.

1.2 What rules govern litigation in your jurisdiction?

Litigation in Mexico is primarily governed by procedural codes, which vary depending on:

• the type of matter (eg, civil, commercial, criminal, labour); and
• whether the case is heard in federal or local courts.

For civil and commercial litigation, the principal source is the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, enacted in 2023 and expected to enter fully into force in 2027, replacing state and federal codes. Until then, courts continue to apply the Federal Code of Civil Procedure or state-level procedural codes, depending on the forum. In commercial matters, the Commerce Code also applies, particularly for procedural rules before federal courts.

Cases involving constitutional rights are governed by the Amparo Law.

Procedural rules set out the structure and timing of the proceedings, including:

• service of process;
• filing of pleadings;
• interlocutory motions;
• evidence production;
• hearings; and
• judgments.

In commercial cases, the rules allow for oral proceedings, but written submissions still play a central role.

In addition to procedural codes, courts:

• follow case law – binding precedent issued by higher courts – under specific conditions; and
• must also consider international human rights standards under the constitutional block of human rights.

1.3 Do any special regimes apply to specific claims?

Yes. In Mexico, various types of claims are subject to special procedural regimes, under either specific laws or distinct procedural tracks.

For instance, commercial claims involving negotiable instruments, such as promissory notes or cheques, are subject to summary executive proceedings, which are faster and allow for provisional enforcement of the claim if formal requirements are met.

Similarly, claims related to family law, labour disputes, bankruptcy and administrative matters are governed by specialised regimes and institutions. For example, labour matters are handled by labour courts under the Federal Labour Law, with oral and highly protective proceedings in favour of workers.

Bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings are governed by the Bankruptcy Law, which sets out a distinct process for the restructuring or liquidation of commercial debtors under the supervision of:

• a specialised federal court; and
• a court-appointed conciliator or trustee.

In administrative litigation, parties must generally exhaust administrative remedies before challenging final acts through an administrative nullity trial before the Federal Administrative Court or equivalent local courts. In some sectors – such as tax, telecoms, energy and public procurement – sector-specific laws and courts may apply.

Finally, constitutional claims concerning human rights violations must follow the special amparo proceeding, which has its own procedures and admissibility rules under the Amparo Law.

1.4 Which bilateral and multilateral instruments have relevance to litigation in your jurisdiction?

Mexico is a party to various bilateral and multilateral instruments that are relevant to litigation, particularly in the areas of:

• international cooperation;
• arbitration;
• human rights; and
• cross-border enforcement.

In international arbitration, Mexico has:

• ratified:
• • the 1958 New York Convention; and
  • the 1975 Inter-American Convention on International Commercial Arbitration (Panama Convention); and
• adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law, which is incorporated into the Commerce Code.

Mexico is also a party to the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (Choice of Court Convention), which facilitates the recognition and enforcement of judgments between contracting states.

With respect to international judicial cooperation, Mexico has:

• ratified the Hague Conventions on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents and on the Taking of Evidence; and
• entered into numerous bilateral treaties on legal assistance, especially in civil and criminal matters.

In the field of human rights, international treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have constitutional status, making them enforceable in domestic litigation, particularly through amparo proceedings.

Moreover, Mexico is a party to over 30 bilateral investment treaties and several free trade agreements, including the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which often include fork-in-the-road clauses. These provisions may bar parties from pursuing domestic litigation once they initiate or consent to international arbitration, which has important strategic implications for plaintiffs.

2 Judicial structure

2.1 What courts exist in your jurisdiction and how are they structured?

Mexico has a dual judicial system, consisting of federal courts and state (local) courts, each with jurisdiction defined by the Constitution and applicable laws.

Until recently, the federal judiciary was headed by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, followed by:

• collegiate circuit courts;
• unitary circuit courts; and
• district courts.

The Federal Judiciary Council oversaw the administration and discipline of the federal courts, except the Supreme Court.

Each state judiciary has traditionally included:

• a state supreme court;
• an intermediate appellate court; and
• first-instance trial courts organised by subject matter.

Federal courts have jurisdiction over constitutional and federally regulated matters (eg, amparo, intellectual property, competition); while local courts handle most civil and commercial disputes. In commercial litigation, there is concurrent jurisdiction, meaning that cases may be brought before either federal or local courts unless exclusive jurisdiction is established by law.

However, in 2024, a sweeping constitutional reform was enacted which will profoundly transform the structure of the judiciary. Among other changes, it provides for:

• the popular election of:
• • Supreme Court justices; and
  • federal and local judges; and
• the elimination of the Federal Judiciary Council.

These reforms are expected to take effect in September 2025 and their implementation will significantly alter the selection, oversight and independence of judges at all levels, raising serious concerns about:

• legal certainty;
• judicial impartiality; and
• institutional stability.

2.2 What specialist courts or tribunals exist in your jurisdiction?

Mexico has several specialist courts and tribunals that handle specific types of disputes, at both the federal and local levels.

At the federal level, notable specialist bodies include:

• the Federal Judiciary's administrative courts, which hear administrative and tax disputes through the Federal Court of Administrative Justice;
• the labour courts, recently created to replace conciliation and arbitration boards, which operate under the 2019 labour reform and are gradually being implemented at both federal and state levels;
• the specialised courts on economic competition, broadcasting and telecommunications, established under constitutional reforms and located in Mexico City;
• the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary, which resolves electoral disputes and challenges; and
• courts specialised in criminal matters, especially those handling:
• • organised crime; and
  • high-impact offences.

At the local level, many states have created specialised family, commercial and oral trial courts, in response to procedural reforms that encourage specialisation and orality.

In addition, the Supreme Court may create special chambers to hear certain high-priority matters.

However, the 2024 constitutional reform – which has restructured the judiciary – may affect the permanence and independence of these specialist courts, as:

• judges will now be elected by popular vote; and
• existing bodies such as the Federal Judiciary Council are being dismantled.

The precise scope and configuration of specialist jurisdictions under the new system remains uncertain.

3 Pre-litigation

3.1 What formalities apply before litigation can be commenced in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, the formal requirements prior to filing a lawsuit:

• depend on the subject matter of the dispute; and
• must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

However, in general, there are no mandatory formalities required before commencing litigation. A party may file a claim directly before the competent court without needing to exhaust prior steps such as negotiation, notice or mediation – unless a specific law or contract provides otherwise.

That said, some areas of law do impose pre-filing requirements. For example:

• in labour matters, employees must first attend a mandatory conciliation hearing before the federal or local labour conciliation centres;
• in family and civil law, some jurisdictions require an attempt at alternative dispute resolution, particularly in matters involving custody or spousal maintenance;
• in administrative and tax litigation, plaintiffs are often required to exhaust administrative remedies before accessing judicial review; and
• in consumer protection disputes, proceedings before the Federal Consumer Protection Agency may be a prerequisite in certain cases.

3.2 Do any pre-action protocols or similar rules apply prior to the commencement of litigation? What are the consequences of non-compliance?

There are no general pre-action protocols comparable to those found in common law jurisdictions. The procedural codes do not require formal steps such as pre-litigation disclosure or mandatory notices in ordinary civil or commercial litigation.

3.3 What other factors should a party consider before commencing litigation in your jurisdiction?

A key consideration is determining which procedural rules apply, as Mexico is currently transitioning to the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, enacted in 2023. The code will gradually replace both federal and local procedural codes, but its entry into force varies by state and court. As a result, parties must verify whether the new national code or an existing local/federal code governs their specific case.

4 Commencing litigation

4.1 What rules on limitations periods apply in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, limitation periods are governed by substantive law, particularly:

• the Federal Civil Code;
• local civil codes; and
• the Commerce Code.

The applicable period:

• varies depending on the nature of the claim; and
• must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the relevant legal framework.

The general rule for civil and commercial matters is 10 years but there are some major exceptions – for instance, tort claims must usually be brought within two years of the date on which the plaintiff became aware of the damage or breach.

Limitation periods may be interrupted (eg, by filing suit or acknowledgement of debt) or suspended in certain circumstances (eg, minority, force majeure).

International instruments may also be relevant. Mexico is a party to the United Nations Convention on the Limitation Period in the International Sale of Goods, which applies to certain cross-border commercial transactions.

As a general rule, courts do not assess limitation periods ex officio; this must be raised by the defendant as an affirmative defence.

4.2 What rules on jurisdiction and how this is determined apply in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, jurisdiction:

• is determined based on a combination of:
• • subject matter;
  • territory; and
  • legal hierarchy; and
• must be analysed on a case-by-case basis.

First, there is a distinction between federal and local (state) jurisdiction. Federal courts hear matters expressly assigned by the Constitution or federal laws – such as:

• amparo proceedings;
• IP disputes;
• telecommunications; and
• competition.

Local courts handle the majority of civil, family and commercial matters; although in commercial disputes, there is often concurrent jurisdiction, allowing the plaintiff to choose between federal and local courts.

Territorial jurisdiction is generally determined by the defendant's domicile. However, exceptions exist – such as in cases involving:

• contractual choice-of-forum clauses; or
• special rules applicable to certain types of claims (eg, torts, real estate or family law).

Jurisdictional rules are primarily found in:

• the Federal Code of Civil Procedure;
• local civil procedure codes; and
• going forward, the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, which is being phased in gradually across states and at the federal level.

Parties may agree to submit to a specific forum by including a forum selection clause in their contract. These clauses are generally respected under Mexican law, provided that they do not contravene public policy or exclusive jurisdiction provisions.

4.3 Are class actions permitted in your jurisdiction?

Yes, class actions are permitted in Mexico, but they are subject to a specialised and restrictive legal framework. The concept was formally introduced through a 2010 constitutional reform and is regulated under Book V of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, which applies exclusively to the federal jurisdiction.

Class actions may be filed in three categories of cases:

• consumer protection;
• environmental harm;
• financial services; and
• competition.

Only certain entities have legal standing to bring class actions, including:

• the Federal Consumer Protection Agency (PROFECO);
• the Federal Environmental Protection Agency;
• the National Commission for the Protection of Users of Financial Services;
• the Attorney General's Office;
• non-profit civil associations registered for this purpose; and
• in limited circumstances, groups of affected individuals.

Class actions must be filed before federal district courts and a specialised certification process will determine whether the case meets legal requirements for admission as a class action.

Despite their availability, and unlike in jurisdictions such as the United States, class actions are seldom used. However, PROFECO remains a proactive user of class actions.

4.4 What are the formal requirements for commencing litigation?

In Mexico, the formal requirements for commencing litigation depend on:

• the nature of the dispute;
• the competent jurisdiction (federal or local); and
• the procedural code in force – which may be:
• • the Federal Code of Civil Procedure;
  • a state-level code; or
  • the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, which is being implemented progressively.

That said, litigation typically begins with the filing of a written complaint, which must include:

• the identities of the parties (including domicile and legal standing);
• a statement of the facts supporting the claim;
• the legal grounds and causes of action;
• the relief or remedies sought;
• the evidence offered, including a list of documents and witnesses; and
• the signature of the plaintiff or its representative.

The plaintiff must also attach:

• supporting documents (eg, contracts, invoices); and
• where applicable, a power of attorney or corporate documentation proving legal representation.

All foreign-language documents must be accompanied by a Spanish translation and foreign public documents must be apostilled or legalised.

Given the diversity in procedural frameworks and subject matter, the specific formalities must be analysed on a case-by-case basis.

4.5 What are the procedural and substantive requirements for commencing litigation?

The procedural and substantive requirements for commencing litigation in Mexico must be analysed on a case-by-case basis, as they depend on:

• the nature of the dispute;
• the competent jurisdiction (federal or local); and
• the procedural code in force – which may be:
• • a local code;
  • the Federal Code of Civil Procedure; or
  • the newly enacted National Code of Civil and Family Procedure.

Procedurally, litigation begins with the filing of a written complaint. Once the complaint is filed, the court will evaluate whether:

• the filing meets the formal requirements; and
• the action is admissible.

If accepted, the court will issue a summons to notify the defendant and trigger the response period.

Substantively:

• the claim must be based on a legally protected right; and
• the claimant must demonstrate standing (ie, a direct and personal legal interest).

4.6 Are interim remedies available in your jurisdiction? If so, how are they obtained?

The availability and requirements for interim remedies in Mexico must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on:

• the type of proceeding;
• the competent jurisdiction; and
• the applicable procedural code.

Interim remedies are known in Mexico as 'medidas cautelares' or 'providencias precautorias'.

These remedies are available before or during litigation and aim to:

• preserve rights;
• avoid irreparable harm; or
• guarantee future enforcement of a judgment.

Common examples include:

• precautionary attachment of assets;
• seizure or deposit of disputed goods;
• orders to prevent the defendant from performing specific acts;
• temporary restitution of possession; and
• suspension of administrative acts, particularly in amparo or administrative proceedings.

Interim relief is governed by:

• the Federal Code of Civil Procedure;
• local procedural codes;
• the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure (in force in some jurisdictions); and
• in commercial matters, the Commerce Code, which expressly recognises the availability of precautionary measures in mercantile proceedings.

To obtain an interim remedy, the applicant must typically:

• show a prima facie right;
• prove the existence of urgency or risk of irreparable harm; and
• offer a bond or guarantee to cover damages if the measure is later found to be unjustified.

Courts assess each request discretionarily, considering:

• proportionality;
• urgency; and
• evidentiary support.

4.7 Under what circumstances must security for costs be provided?

In Mexico, there is no general rule requiring parties to provide security for costs simply by initiating litigation. The requirement to post a bond or guarantee arises only in specific procedural situations and must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, depending on:

• the nature of the proceedings; and
• the remedies sought.

The most common circumstance in which security is required is when requesting interim measures such as asset freezes or injunctions. In such cases, the applicant must generally post a bond to compensate the opposing party if the measure is later found to be unjustified.

5 Disclosure

5.1 What rules apply to disclosure in your jurisdiction? Do any exceptions apply to certain types of documents?

In Mexico, there is no general discovery system comparable to that in common law jurisdictions. Instead, disclosure:

• is limited and formal; and
• is governed by the applicable procedural code – that is, depending on the forum:
• • the Commerce Code;
  • the Federal Code of Civil Procedure;
  • a local code; or
  • the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure.

Evidence is primarily party driven, meaning that each party is responsible for offering the documents, witnesses and expert evidence that support its case. There is no obligation to proactively disclose adverse evidence.

However, parties may request the court to order the production of specific documents in the possession of the opposing party or a third party, provided that they:

• identify the document with sufficient specificity;
• demonstrate its relevance to the case; and
• show that they are otherwise unable to obtain it.

Courts may reject the request if:

• the document is protected by legal privilege; or
• the request:
• • involves personal or confidential information; or
  • lacks proper justification.

Certain categories – such as communications between attorney and client, personal data and documents involving national security or banking secrecy – are subject to strict protection.

Public authorities are also subject to transparency obligations, but courts apply a balancing test when such documents are requested in litigation.

Overall, disclosure in Mexico is narrow and exception based, and requests must be carefully tailored and justified within the procedural framework applicable to the case.

5.2 What rules on third-party disclosure apply in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, rules on third-party disclosure:

• differ significantly between private and public law proceedings; and
• must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

In private law matters (eg, civil and commercial disputes), third-party disclosure is limited. Private individuals or entities are not generally obliged to produce documents unless ordered to do so by a court. Even then, the requesting party must:

• precisely identify the third party and the document;
• show that the evidence is material and relevant to the case; and
• demonstrate that it cannot be obtained through other means.

Courts may issue an order of production, but:

• enforcement is limited; and
• courts often show deference to third-party privacy or proprietary concerns.

There is no general duty of disclosure for private parties unless a legal obligation or contractual clause exists.

In contrast, in public law proceedings – including amparo, administrative, tax and regulatory litigation – public authorities:

• have a legal duty to cooperate with the courts; and
• may be required to submit:
• • official records;
  • administrative files; or
  • internal documents.

These obligations are typically much broader than those applicable in private disputes.

Some materials are exempt from disclosure, including:

• privileged communications;
• sensitive personal data; and
• classified government information.

In all cases:

• disclosure requests involving third parties must comply with applicable procedural codes; and
• courts retain discretion to limit or reject overly broad or invasive requests.

5.3 What rules on privilege apply in your jurisdiction? Does attorney-client privilege extend to in-house counsel?

In Mexico, there is no direct equivalent to attorney-client privilege as understood in common law systems. Instead, the applicable protection derives from the duty of professional secrecy, which is established in:

• the Federal Criminal Code and some state criminal codes; and
• professional ethics rules.

Lawyers are criminally prohibited from disclosing confidential information provided by a client in the course of their professional duties. However, this is an individual duty, not a procedural rule of evidence. Mexican procedural law does not automatically bar the use or admissibility of privileged communications. Their admissibility must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

There is no general rule requiring the courts to exclude lawyer-client communications introduced as evidence by a third party. Nevertheless:

• a lawyer may refuse to testify about such matters; and
• courts will typically respect such a refusal.

Mexican law does not distinguish in-house counsel from external lawyers. There is no specific regulation governing the confidentiality of in-house legal communications. Therefore, the general rule on professional secrecy could apply, although there is no precedent to guide this issue at the moment.

5.4 How have technological advances affected the disclosure process in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, technological advances have gradually influenced the handling of evidence and disclosure, although the system still does not recognise broad discovery mechanisms. The impact varies depending on:

• the jurisdiction; and
• the procedural code in force.

Most courts now accept digitally signed documents and electronic filings through online judicial platforms. Several federal and state court systems have implemented electronic case files and online notification systems, which:

• streamline access to case materials; and
• facilitate communication between parties and courts.

In terms of disclosure, the main development is the increasing use of electronically stored information – such as emails, databases, messages and metadata – as evidence. Parties are allowed to submit digital evidence.

However, there is no specific framework for electronic discovery. In practice, the lack of standardised rules on electronic disclosure creates challenges regarding access, authentication and preservation of digital evidence, particularly in private law disputes.

5.5 What specific considerations should be borne in mind during the disclosure process, for both plaintiff and defendant?

No answer submitted for this question.

6 Evidence

6.1 What types of evidence are permissible in your jurisdiction?

Mexican procedural law permits a wide range of evidence types, provided that they are:

• lawful;
• relevant; and
• offered in accordance with procedural rules.

The admissibility of evidence depends on:

• the nature of the dispute;
• the jurisdiction; and
• the applicable procedural code – whether local, federal or the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure.

Permissible evidence generally includes:

• documentary evidence, both public and private (eg, contracts, invoices, correspondence);
• testimonial evidence, obtained through in-court questioning of witnesses;
• party confessions, whether judicial or extrajudicial;
• expert evidence, particularly in technical, financial or scientific matters;
• judicial inspections, where the court directly examines an object or place;
• presumptions and circumstantial evidence, where permitted by law; and
• electronic and digital evidence – such as emails, metadata or audio/video files – provided that their authenticity and integrity can be demonstrated.

All evidence must be offered in the manner and within the timeframes set by the applicable code. In some cases – such as family matters and urgent proceedings – courts may accept evidence more flexibly.

Evidence obtained illegally or in violation of fundamental rights (eg, through unlawful surveillance or coercion) is generally inadmissible. Courts may also reject evidence that is:

• irrelevant;
• redundant; or
• submitted late without justification.

6.2 What rules apply to expert evidence in your jurisdiction? What specific considerations should be borne in mind when preparing and presenting expert evidence?

In Mexico, expert evidence is a commonly used and regulated form of evidence, particularly in disputes involving technical, scientific, financial or specialised subject matter. The applicable rules vary depending on the procedural code (local, federal or the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure), but the general structure is consistent. Each party may appoint its own expert and in some cases the court may also designate a court-appointed expert, especially where the opinions of the parties' experts are contradictory. Experts must have formal credentials or recognised expertise in the relevant field.

An expert's written report must:

• be submitted within the timeframe set by the court;
• respond to specific technical questions submitted by the party or the court;
• be clear, substantiated and technically supported; and
• be accompanied by the expert's curriculum or credentials.

In oral proceedings, experts may be called to testify and be cross-examined in court. In written proceedings, their reports are assessed along with the rest of the evidentiary record.

6.3 What other factors should be borne in mind when preparing and presenting evidence in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, evidence must be prepared and presented with careful attention to:

• procedural formalities;
• timing; and
• the rules of admissibility under the applicable code (whether federal, local or the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure).

The process is not governed by broad disclosure obligations, so each party is responsible for gathering, offering and defending its own evidence.

Key considerations include the following:

• Timing: Evidence must be offered within the deadlines set by the court. Late submission may be rejected unless justified.
• Formality: Public documents (eg, notarial deeds) carry greater evidentiary weight, while private documents may require ratification or supporting testimony.
• Authentication: Digital or electronic evidence (eg, emails, messages, metadata) must be accompanied by technical means of proving authenticity and integrity, such as digital certificates or expert analysis.
• Chain of custody: Particularly in cases involving physical or digital objects, maintaining and documenting a secure chain of custody may be essential to admissibility.
• Translation and legalisation:
• • Foreign-language documents must be accompanied by certified Spanish translations; and
  • Public documents may need to be apostilled or legalised.
• Confidentiality: When evidence involves sensitive or protected information, courts may grant partial access or restrict public disclosure.

Judges have significant discretion in weighing evidence. Therefore, the relevance, coherence and presentation of the evidence, along with how it fits within the legal theory of the case, can be decisive to the outcome.

7 Court proceedings

7.1 What case management powers do the courts have in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, the case management powers of courts must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, as they depend on:

• the type of proceeding;
• the jurisdiction; and
• the applicable procedural code.

However, compared to their counterparts in other jurisdictions – particularly those with adversarial or common law systems – Mexican courts have more limited tools to actively shape the conduct of litigation.

The main powers available to courts relate to:

• the ability to impose procedural sanctions on parties that:
• • act in bad faith;
  • fail to comply with deadlines;
  • obstruct the process; or
  • otherwise violate the principles of due process; and
• the power of free evaluation of evidence, which allows judges to assess the probative value of evidence based on logic, experience and sound reasoning, without being strictly bound by formal evidentiary hierarchies.

7.2 Are court proceedings in your jurisdiction public or private? If the former, are any options available to the parties to keep the proceedings or related information confidential?

In Mexico, whether court proceedings are public or private must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on:

• the subject matter of the dispute; and
• the applicable procedural rules.

As a general rule, proceedings are not public in civil, commercial and family matters. Access to the case file and docket is usually restricted to:

• the parties;
• their legal representatives; and
• the court.

Third parties may consult the file only:

• with judicial authorisation; or
• when a legitimate legal interest is demonstrated.

However, some proceedings are open in whole or in part – particularly those involving constitutional, administrative or public interest matters. In amparo cases before higher courts, for instance:

• amicus curiae briefs are permitted; and
• hearings may be open to the public or streamed online, especially when constitutional interpretation or human rights issues are at stake.

7.3 How is the applicable law determined? What happens in the event of a conflict of laws?

In Mexico, the applicable law is determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether:

• the matter involves private or public law interests; and
• foreign elements are present in the dispute.

In private law matters, such as contracts, Mexican courts generally respect the principle of party autonomy: parties may choose the law governing their relationship, as long as that choice does not:

• seek to circumvent mandatory provisions of Mexican law; or
• conflict with public policy.

In the absence of a valid choice of law, courts apply the Federal Civil Code's conflict of laws rules, which direct judges to identify the applicable law in that case to the matter. Relevant factors include:

• the place of performance;
• the domicile of the parties; and
• the location of the subject matter of the dispute.

In public law matters, such as administrative or tax disputes:

• Mexican law will apply by default; and
• the application of foreign law is generally excluded.

Mexican courts are open to applying foreign law but will reject it if doing so would contravene:

• fundamental rights;
• national sovereignty; or
• basic legal principles.

Foreign law must be alleged and proven by the party invoking it, typically through expert opinions or certified translations, since courts do not take judicial notice of foreign law.

7.4 What rules apply to the joinder of third parties?

In Mexico, third-party participation in litigation is primarily governed by the procedural figure known as 'tercería', which allows a non-party to intervene in ongoing proceedings when it has a direct legal interest that could be affected by the outcome of the case. The rules governing this mechanism vary slightly depending on the applicable procedural code, but the structure is largely consistent.

The main types of tercerías are as follows

• Tercería excluyente de dominio: Filed by a third party claiming ownership of property that is being subject to enforcement or precautionary measures in a dispute between others.
• Tercería coadyuvante: Filed by a third party seeking to support one of the existing parties because the outcome may affect its own legal interest.
• Terceria de garantía: Where a third party not involved in the original litigation intervenes to assert a right (typically ownership or possession) over property that is being seized or affected in a judicial process.

In these cases, the court will evaluate whether:

• the third party's interest is legally relevant and direct; and
• the request has been made in a timely manner.

If admitted, the third party is allowed to participate and present evidence within the limited scope of its interest.

Ultimately, third-party joinder in Mexico is limited and formal, and is assessed on a case-by-case basis based on the third party's legal standing.

In public law proceedings, such as administrative or constitutional cases, the rules on third-party participation differ and may allow for broader forms of intervention, including participation by interested third parties or amici curiae, depending on the specific procedural framework.

7.5 How do the court proceedings unfold in your jurisdiction? What specific considerations should be borne in mind at each stage of the process, for both plaintiff and defendant?

Court proceedings in Mexico must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, as they depend on:

• the type of dispute;
• the applicable procedural code; and
• whether the matter falls under local or federal jurisdiction.

Generally, civil and commercial cases follow a structured sequence:

• filing of the claim;
• service;
• response;
• the evidence stage;
• final arguments; and
• judgment.

Key considerations include the following:

• Filing and service: Plaintiffs must submit a clearly drafted claim with supporting evidence. Service formalities must be strictly observed.
• Response: Defendants must respond on time, asserting all defences and counterclaims at once.
• Evidence stage: Evidence must be offered and presented in the correct procedural window and in accordance with formal requirements. The system tends to be inflexible in the case of evidence submitted out of time or without proper formalities, often leading to inadmissibility.

Mexico is undergoing a comprehensive judicial reform, including new procedural frameworks and institutional restructuring. As a result, there is significant uncertainty as to how proceedings will operate in the short to medium term.

7.6 What is the typical timeframe for the court proceedings?

There is no rule of thumb. The duration of court proceedings in Mexico will vary depending on:

• the type of dispute;
• the jurisdiction;
• the complexity of the case; and
• the applicable procedural rules.

In ordinary civil and commercial matters, a typical first-instance proceeding may take between 12 and 24 months, though delays are common. Appeals may take an additional six to 18 months; and if constitutional (amparo) review is sought, the total duration may be extended.

One of the key challenges in estimating timelines is the judicial reform enacted in 2024, which involved:

• a complete restructuring of the judiciary; and
• the replacement of existing procedural frameworks.

As the reform is implemented gradually:

• different courts may follow different procedural regimes; and
• some may face administrative or institutional disruptions.

This contributes to a high degree of uncertainty regarding timeframes.

8 Judgment and remedies

8.1 What types of judgments, orders and other remedies are available in your jurisdiction?

The Mexican courts may issue a range of remedies depending on the nature of the dispute. The most common are:

• declaratory judgments, establishing the existence or non-existence of rights or legal relationships;
• constitutive judgments, which create, modify or extinguish legal situations (eg, annulment of a contract);
• condemnatory judgments, ordering a party to:
• • pay a sum of money;
  • deliver an asset; or
  • perform/abstain from an act;
• interlocutory orders, resolving procedural issues during the course of litigation; and
• precautionary or interim measures, such as asset freezes or injunctions, to preserve the subject matter of the dispute.

Judgments can be enforced through compulsory execution procedures, including seizure of assets. In exceptional cases, coercive measures – such as fines or even arrest – may be ordered to compel compliance with judicial orders.

9 Appeals

9.1 On what grounds may a judgment be appealed in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, virtually all judgments may be appealed by the losing party. The appellate process is broad in scope and does not require a specific legal threshold – any party dissatisfied with the judgment may challenge it.

Appeals typically raise issues such as:

• errors of law, including misinterpretation or misapplication of substantive or procedural norms;
• errors in the evaluation of evidence, such as incorrect factual findings; and
• violations of due process, such as:
• • lack of proper service;
  • refusal to admit valid evidence; or
  • failure to hear the parties.

The most common appeal is the apelación, which allows a second-instance court to review both legal and factual aspects of the decision. The review is generally based on the written record and oral hearings are rare.

Additionally, certain procedural decisions (eg, evidentiary rulings or procedural sanctions) can be challenged through incidental remedies, including recurso de queja or reposición, depending on the procedural code.

Once ordinary appeals have been exhausted, a party may still challenge a judgment through an amparo – a constitutional remedy designed to protect fundamental rights. Amparo is not a third level of appeal but a separate proceeding focused on verifying whether the judicial process violated constitutional guarantees, particularly due process. It:

• is subject to strict formal requirements and short deadlines; and
• if granted, may annul or suspend the effects of the challenged decision.

9.2 What is the appeals process? Is the judgment stayed while the appeal is pending?

No answer submitted for this question.

9.3 What specific considerations should be borne in mind during the appeals process, for both plaintiff and defendant?

In Mexico, the most important consideration during and after the appeals process is the potential for a constitutional review through amparo. Once ordinary remedies (eg, appeal) have been exhausted, the losing party may file an amparo claim if it believes that the judgment violated its constitutional rights – particularly its rights to:

• due process;
• legal certainty; or
• access to justice.

10 Enforcement

10.1 How are domestic judgments enforced in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, domestic judgments are enforced through a separate execution phase initiated before the same court that issued the decision once the judgment becomes final and enforceable (ie, no longer subject to appeal or protected by a suspensive remedy).

The successful party must formally request enforcement and the court may take a variety of measures to ensure compliance. Depending on the nature of the judgment, these include:

• seizure of assets;
• garnishment of accounts; and
• orders for specific performance.

If the losing party does not comply voluntarily, the court may authorise judicial officers to carry out enforcement actions, such as the attachment and eventual sale of assets. Some forms of precautionary or interim relief may also be available to prevent the dissipation of assets during enforcement.

That said, the process is generally formalistic and rule driven, and courts will require strict adherence to procedural requirements. Any defect in the request or failure to comply with deadlines may delay enforcement.

In practice, enforcement proceedings can be slowed down by additional procedural incidents, including:

• challenges by third parties; or
• requests for suspension.

As such, careful planning and early action are often key to securing effective execution.

10.2 How are foreign judgments enforced in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, foreign judgments are not automatically enforceable. To be recognised and enforced, they must go through a judicial process known as 'exequatur', which is governed by:

• the Federal Code of Civil Procedure;
• relevant treaties; and
• principles of international private law.

The requesting party must file a formal petition before a competent Mexican court, accompanied by:

• a duly legalised or apostilled copy of the foreign judgment; and
• proof that the judgment is final and binding in the country of origin.

The Mexican courts will evaluate several conditions, including that:

• the judgment was issued by a competent foreign court;
• due process was observed, including:
• • proper notice; and
  • the opportunity to be heard;
• the judgment is not contrary to Mexican public policy; and
• there is reciprocity between Mexico and the country in which the judgment was issued.

Treaties such as the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters may apply where in force and may simplify some requirements.

10.3 What specific considerations should be borne in mind during the enforcement process, for both plaintiff and defendant?

In Mexico, both parties must consider that judgment enforcement is highly formalistic and subject to strict procedural requirements. Even minor omissions in documentation or procedure can delay or derail enforcement efforts.

11 Costs, fees and funding

11.1 What costs and fees are incurred when litigating in your jurisdiction?

In Mexico, there are no court fees for filing or prosecuting civil or commercial cases before federal or local courts. This applies to both domestic and foreign parties. However, litigants will incur other types of costs depending on the nature and complexity of the case.

Common litigation-related expenses include the following:

• Legal fees: Attorneys' fees are not regulated by law and are subject to private agreement. These may be charged on an hourly, fixed or contingency basis.
• Expert fees: If expert evidence is required, parties must pay the fees of court-appointed or party-appointed experts, which can vary widely depending on:
• • the relevant field; and
  • the complexity of the opinion.
• Translation and authentication: For foreign parties or foreign evidence, official translations, apostilles or legalisations may be required.
• Notary and procedural services: Costs may arise from:
• • notarising documents;
  • hiring private process servers; or
  • securing certified copies of court filings.
• Enforcement costs: Additional expenses may be incurred during the execution of judgments, especially if asset seizure or auctions are necessary.

In general, the losing party may be ordered to pay costs, but these usually cover only a portion of the actual expenses (notably court-appointed expert fees or administrative costs), not full legal fees, unless otherwise agreed or provided by statute.

11.2 Are contingency fees and similar arrangements permitted in your jurisdiction?

Yes, contingency fee arrangements are permitted in Mexico and are commonly used in certain types of litigation – particularly in commercial, civil and tort claims. These agreements allow a lawyer to be compensated only if the client obtains a favourable outcome, typically as a percentage of the recovered amount.

There is no statutory regulation that prohibits contingency fees and Mexican law recognises freedom of contract between attorneys and clients.

11.3 Is third-party funding permitted in your jurisdiction?

Yes, third-party litigation funding is permitted in Mexico, though it operates within a developing and lightly regulated framework.

There is no specific law limiting or prohibiting funding arrangements in domestic litigation – Mexican courts treat them as atypical commercial contracts governed by general contract law.

While not yet widespread in domestic courts, third-party funding is increasingly used in arbitration cases, where its uptake has been stronger due to higher associated costs.

No disclosure of third party funding is required under Mexican procedural law.

11.4 What other strategies should parties consider to mitigate the costs of litigation?

In Mexico, where court access is generally free of charge, the most significant litigation costs arise from:

• legal fees;
• expert opinions; and
• enforcement-related expenses.

To mitigate these, parties should consider several strategic measures:

• Early case assessment: Parties should evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their case from the outset, identifying possible procedural hurdles and estimating the full cost of litigation, including appeals and potential amparo actions.
• Alternative dispute resolution (ADR): Parties may reduce costs and time by pursuing mediation or arbitration, especially in commercial matters. In some cases, courts themselves may encourage settlement or diversion to ADR mechanisms.
• Efficient document and evidence management: Ensuring that all evidence is available, properly formatted and timely submitted can avoid delays and reduce the risk of procedural rejections, which often generate additional costs.
• Contingency or capped fee arrangements: Clients may negotiate alternative billing structures with their legal counsel – such as success-based fees, flat fees or monthly caps – to limit cost exposure.
• Consolidation of proceedings: If related claims or parties are involved, procedural consolidation may reduce duplicative filings and hearings.
• Judgment-proof defendants: Before litigating, plaintiffs should assess whether the opposing party has enforceable assets. This can prevent the pursuit of expensive litigation against defendants that are unlikely to satisfy a judgment.

By planning carefully and selecting the right procedural tools, parties can:

• litigate more efficiently; and
• minimise unnecessary expenditure.

12 Trends and predictions

12.1 How would you describe the current litigation landscape and prevailing trends in your jurisdiction? Are any new developments anticipated in the next 12 months, including any proposed legislative reforms?

Mexico's litigation landscape is in a period of fundamental transition, shaped by several influential trends:

• Judicial reform and elections: Enacted in September 2024, this sweeping constitutional reform has:
• • introduced popular elections for judges at the federal and state levels; and
  • replaced the Federal Judiciary Council with a Judicial Disciplinary Tribunal.
• The authorities plan to implement it during 2025–2027, but the uncertainty is considerable – judicial independence, timing, selection criteria and procedural continuity thus remain in flux.
• New procedural standards: The National Code of Civil and Family Procedure is being rolled out to unify rules across jurisdictions. It aims to standardise civil procedure, but staggered adoption means that deadlines, evidentiary standards and processes may differ significantly across courts during this transition
• Shift to alternative dispute resolution and arbitration: Businesses are considering mediation and arbitration to avoid potential disruption and gain predictability amid the uncertainty caused by the judicial reform.

13 Tips and traps

13.1 What would be your recommendations to parties facing litigation in your jurisdiction and what potential pitfalls would you highlight?

Litigating in Mexico requires:

• careful planning;
• procedural precision; and
• a clear understanding of the evolving legal landscape.

Key recommendations include the following:

• Case-by-case analysis: Before initiating or responding to litigation, assess:
• • the applicable procedural code;
  • the nature of the claim (civil, commercial, administrative); and
  • whether federal or local rules apply.
• With the gradual implementation of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, procedural differences still exist across courts.
• Evidence strategy: Courts are formalistic – evidence must:
• • be timely;
  • be properly offered; and
  • meet strict formalities.
• Late or improperly submitted evidence is rarely admitted.
• Monitor judicial reform: The ongoing constitutional reform to overhaul the judiciary is creating significant uncertainty. Parties should stay informed about possible changes to:
• • judicial appointments;
  • court structures; and
  • procedural rules.
• Plan for appeals and amparo: Appeals are common and constitutional review (amparo) may follow. Legal strategy must consider:
• • this extended timeline; and
  • the possibility of enforcement delays.
• Assess enforceability: Before initiating a claim, evaluate whether:
• • the defendant has assets in Mexico; and
  • a judgment would be enforceable in practice.

Pitfalls to avoid include:

• relying on informal understandings or overlooking procedural deadlines;
• failing to adapt to jurisdictional variations or misidentifying the competent court; and
• underestimating the time, complexity and unpredictability of enforcement.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.