In Mexican dispute resolution practice, commercial disputes are resolved through specific procedures established under commercial legislation, including:

• ordinary commercial proceedings;
• commercial enforcement proceedings;
• oral commercial proceedings; and
• special proceeding for bonds, among others.

Commercial legislation provides for a conventional procedure that may be agreed by the parties to solve a dispute before a judge.

Other methods include alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as private conciliation and arbitration proceedings. 

Currently, within the Mexican dispute resolution practice, commercial dispute resolution through oral trails has gained traction and popularity following a reform implemented in commercial matters, making them dynamic and efficient in their proceeding and resolution of disputes.

Mexican commercial legislation provides for a rage of special actions that may be pursued through different types of proceedings, including:

• corporate actions brought by way of ordinary commercial proceedings;
• claims under surety bonds, which are subject to a special procedure; and
• insurance-related disputes, which are handled through oral commercial proceedings.

However, with the implementation of the judicial reform last year, the confidence of the parties in the judicial authorities comprising the Federal Judiciary and the State Judiciaries has waned. Consequently, in Mexican dispute resolution practice, parties have increasingly opted to submit commercial disputes to arbitration.

The trend is toward more dynamic trials in which the litigation parties actively participate by presenting their arguments and substantiate their claims through the evidence they provide, as well as toward faster proceedings to secure an effective judgment.

Limitation periods vary depending on the type of claim brought. Different commercial statutes provide for different causes of action depending on the subject matter of the dispute.

For example, in corporate matters, an action to oppose a resolution adopted at a shareholders’ meeting must be brought within 15 calendar days of the meeting’s conclusion, whereas an action for nullity of a shareholders’ meeting is subject to a ten-year limitation period.

The structure of the Mexican judiciary is as follows:

• the Supreme Court, the highest court, which determines the constitutionality of statutes and international treaties;
• the federal courts, which have jurisdiction over: 
1. civil and commercial matters under federal law;
2. commercial insolvency proceedings; and
3. amparo proceedings; and
• the state courts, which hear civil and commercial matters under concurrent jurisdiction.

Mexican procedural law does not require any preliminary steps to be taken before filing a lawsuit. However, various procedural prerequisites must be satisfied for a claim to be admissible. For example, if the claimant is a company, it must file evidence of its legal representation.

A proceeding begins with the preliminary stage, which comprises filing the statement of claim, service on the defendant, and the defendant’s response.

The second stage is the evidentiary phase, during which the parties adduce their evidence, and which concludes with an evidentiary hearing. This is generally the longest stage of the proceedings.

The third stage comprises closing arguments and judgment, following which the first-instance judgment is delivered. That judgment is subject to appeal and thereafter to constitutional review via amparo.

The overall duration of proceedings, including appeals, depends largely on the court’s workload and procedural conduct of the parties. As a general rule, the entire process lasts between two and three years.

In Mexico, court proceedings are not public. Only the parties and their authorised representatives may access the case file. In proceedings involving more than two parties, the court may also order that certain information be treated as confidential. For example, information related to the know-how of one of the parties to the proceedings.

Under Mexican law, the distinction between interim relief and interim injunctions is doctrinal rather than statutory. The prevailing view is that interim relief is the wider genus, whereas interim injunctions are a species of such relief. The interim injunctions available to a litigant are the following:

• preservation measures, intended to maintain the status quo and ensure that any eventual judgment remains enforceable; and
• security measures, designed to safeguard the outcome of the proceedings by preventing the dissipation of assets, the concealment of persons or the tampering with relevant evidence. Examples of the latter include the following:
1. precautionary attachment or freezing order, which restrains a debtor from alienating assets to secure satisfaction of the claim;
2. passport orders or restraining orders, which seek to prevent a party from absconding to frustrate the proceedings; and
3. freezing order over stock market securities to prevent their transfer, sale or use in new transactions pending litigation or arbitration.

In Mexico, judgments in commercial cases are classified as either declaratory or condemnatory. Declaratory judgments determine a right, whereas condemnatory judgments require the defendant to perform an obligation.

Damages are typically assessed by reference to objective factors evidencing a tortious act, such as breach of an obligation, causing direct infringement of rights. Proof of causation between the wrongful act and the harm is therefore essential to determine and quantify damages.              

Complex commercial and corporate disputes in Mexico are frequently resolved outside traditional courts through private tribunals. Parties heavily favour this mechanism for construction, energy and cross-border contracts due to its technical proficiency.

Matters concerning the civil status of individuals, where pecuniary rights are not the main issue, remain strictly within the exclusive remit of the courts. Criminal matters and specific family law issues are equally non-arbitrable.

Procedural flexibility, the strict confidentiality of the proceedings, and the ability to appoint specialised adjudicators are highly valued. Furthermore, a final award is often secured more expeditiously than in domestic litigation.

Significant costs associated with institutional fees and adjudicators’ remuneration represent the primary drawback. Moreover, coercive judicial intervention is inevitably required for the enforcement of interim measures and final awards.

Leading bodies such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Arbitration Centre of Mexico (CAM) and the American Arbitration Association (AAA) are widely favoured for complex cross-border matters. Concurrently, the National Chamber of Commerce (CANACO) administers a substantial volume of domestic commercial proceedings.

12 to 18 months is the standard timeframe from the constitution of the tribunal to the rendering of the final award. However, highly complex infrastructural or energy disputes often necessitate an extended procedural timetable.

Title Four of the Mexican Commercial Code comprehensively incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law. This statute establishes a unified, modern regime governing both domestic and cross-border proceedings.

Domestic courts act as crucial supportive bodies by appointing adjudicators upon a party’s default and utilising coercive mechanisms to compel the production of evidence. Furthermore, they possess the statutory authority to grant interim preservation measures and enforce the tribunal’s final determinations.

Statutory provisions strictly circumscribe judicial oversight to expressly permitted scenarios. Courts may only rule on jurisdictional challenges, set aside an award, or grant ex parte interim relief prior to the tribunal’s constitution.

Arbitral tribunals exercise extensive authority to award pecuniary damages, order specific performance and issue preventative injunctions. Crucially, however, compelling a non-compliant party to honour these decisions inevitably requires the coercive enforcement mechanisms of the domestic courts.

Conciliation, mediation and extrajudicial procedures before certified facilitators represent the primary formal alternatives to standard litigation. Additionally, consumer and financial protection agencies administer specialised conciliatory mechanisms for specific commercial disputes.

Out-of-court settlements fundamentally rely on voluntary mutual consent. Furthermore, where commercial agreements incorporate multi-tier dispute resolution mechanisms or arbitration clauses, judges will strictly enforce such provisions by declining jurisdiction until the agreed procedures have been fully exhausted.

Reaching a settlement through formal mediation creates a binding agreement that has the same legal force as a final court judgment. If talks fail, the parties keep their full right to take the matter to court.

Disputants may engage in these methods at any juncture before a final judgment is issued. Formal participation in alternative dispute resolution suspends procedural deadlines and statutory limitation periods while the process remains active.

By law, all formal mediation processes are strictly private. Both the mediators and the parties must keep all shared information secret, and this information cannot be used as evidence in later court cases.

Public alternative justice centres attached to the courts offer conciliation and mediation services entirely free of charge. Conversely, when utilising private certified facilitators, parties typically agree to share the professional fees equally.

The Mexican judiciary maintains a highly proactive approach towards alternative dispute resolution, establishing collaboration as a core procedural principle. Judges are statutorily required to propose practical solutions and actively encourage out-of-court settlement agreements.

The provision of legal services is based on the parties’ freedom of contract.

Mexico has no specific regulations governing third-party litigation funding agreements. While such agreements may be entered into pursuant to the principle of freedom of contract, they remain uncommon in practice. This is largely due to the unpredictability of Mexican court rulings, which presents a heightened risk for third-party funders.

Whilst contingency arrangements are typically required by banking and credit institutions when engaging law firms to provide legal services, particularly in litigation, the principle of freedom of contract permits law firms to negotiate their fees and assume risk by entering into success fee arrangements.

In Mexico, insurance companies offer general liability and professional liability policies, which typically cover the cost of legal defence in the event of a claim, as well as compensation for damages.

In litigation, the recovery of legal costs is governed by the “costs follow the event” principle, whereby the unsuccessful party is liable to reimburse the successful party for costs reasonably incurred during the proceedings.

Judges in Mexico generally determine costs by reference to the fee schedule prescribed by each state. In the absence of such a schedule, they rely on expert evidence.

Under Mexican law, the distinction between interim relief and interim injunctions is doctrinal rather than statutory. The prevailing view is that interim relief is the wider genus, referring to judicial measures granted on application to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and prevent serious and irreparable harm to the respondent pending final determination, whereas interim injunctions are a species of such relief, directed specifically at preserving the subject matter and securing the effective enforcement of any eventual judgment. Under Mexican law, interim injunctions fall into two principal categories: (i) preservation measures, intended to maintain the status quo and ensure that any eventual judgment remains enforceable; and (ii) security measures, designed to safeguard the outcome of the proceedings by preventing the dissipation of assets, the concealment of persons or the tampering with relevant evidence. Examples of the latter include the following:

• precautionary attachment or freezing order, which restrains a debtor from alienating assets to secure satisfaction of the claim;
• passport orders or restraining orders, which seek to prevent a party from absconding to frustrate the proceedings; and
• freezing order over stock market securities to prevent their transfer, sale or use in new transactions pending litigation or arbitration.

Mexican law provides for concurrent jurisdiction in respect of interim measures in arbitration: both the courts and the arbitral tribunal have competence to grant such measures, and a party may apply to either. An arbitral tribunal, however, has no power of enforcement. Consequently, court assistance is required to enforce any interim measure granted by the tribunal.

Mexican law provides that interim measures may be applied for either prior to the commencement of proceedings or during their pendency. As pre-trial injunctions are granted ex parte, that is, without a hearing or notice to the opposing party, petitioners typically elect to proceed on this basis.

Mexico has no equivalent to the application for “security of costs”.

Interim injunctions are statutory mechanisms available to safeguard any right at risk of infringement; any party to proceedings may therefore apply for such relief. Judges will generally grant an injunction if certain requirements are met, including:

• the applicant’s entitlement to the right sought to be protected;
• the necessity of the measure; and, where applicable,
• a real risk of dissipation or concealment of assets against which a final judgment may be enforced.

Mexico has no equivalent to the “summary judgment” procedure. The closest concept is the “summary proceeding”, a form of expedited process designed to be conducted more concisely and to conclude in a significantly shorter timeframe than ordinary proceedings. The most common examples include:

• actions for the enforcement of negotiable instruments such as promissory notes;
• real estate lease proceedings; and
• mortgage foreclosure proceedings.

Class actions in Mexico are regulated under Section Six of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure. These provisions establish a specialised procedural framework for the protection of collective rights and interests, which may only be invoked in matters relating to consumer relationships (involving goods or services, whether public or private) and environmental protection.

Although this framework is now governed by the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, it was previously regulated under the Federal Code of Civil Procedure. The key difference is that the new Code adopts a more flexible and protective approach, in particular through the introduction of a certification stage, allowing courts to reclassify incorrectly framed actions, strengthening the principle of full reparation, and extending the limitation period from three-and-a-half years to five years.

The Code recognises three types of collective actions: (i) diffuse actions, concerning indivisible rights held by an indeterminate group; (ii) collective actions in the strict sense, concerning indivisible rights held by a determinate or determinable group linked by common circumstances; and (iii) homogeneous individual actions, concerning divisible individual rights arising from common factual or legal circumstances.

In parallel, certain consumer collective claims may be brought before the Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor (PROFECO), the authority responsible for consumer protection in Mexico.

Before PROFECO, collective actions constitute a legal mechanism through which a claim is filed to protect the rights and interests of a group of consumers against a company whose conduct has caused harm or damage. This mechanism has the advantage of being free of charge; however, it is subject to a different regulatory framework from judicial collective actions and requires that the affected group be composed of at least 30 consumers.

Standing to bring a class action is determined by the nature of the right asserted and the type of collective action pursued. In general terms, actions may be brought on behalf of a group of individuals who share common circumstances.

In the case of diffuse and collective actions in the strict sense, the claim is brought in representation of a collective interest, without the need for each affected individual to appear as a party to the proceedings. By contrast, homogeneous individual actions involve claims based on individual rights, although these are grouped together due to shared factual or legal elements.

Importantly, the action may be brought against any natural or legal person that has caused harm to a collective, regardless of whether a direct legal relationship exists between the defendant and the members of the group. Participation in the action therefore derives from belonging to the affected group, rather than from individual procedural acts.

Class actions may seek declaratory, constitutive or condemnatory relief, in accordance with the principles of full reparation of damage and fair compensation.

The primary objective is to repair the harm caused to the collective. This may include restitution, whereby the situation is restored to its prior state or, where this is not possible, substitute performance or compensation. In the case of collective actions in the strict sense and homogeneous individual actions, damages may also be awarded on an individual basis to members of the group.

Damages are calculated in accordance with the applicable substantive law, taking into account the need to achieve full reparation. This includes not only compensation for the harm suffered, but also measures aimed at preventing the recurrence of the unlawful conduct.

Class actions and mass claims are not commonly brought in arbitration in Mexico. The statutory framework for collective actions is designed specifically for judicial proceedings before federal courts, and there is no equivalent procedural regime for collective redress in arbitration.

While arbitration is frequently used in commercial disputes, it typically requires the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties. This requirement, together with the inherently consensual nature of arbitration, limits its suitability for collective claims involving multiple parties, particularly where there is no direct contractual relationship between all members of the affected group and the respondent.

As a result, collective claims are predominantly pursued through the courts or, in consumer matters, through administrative mechanisms such as PROFECO, rather than arbitral tribunals.

Class actions in Mexico remain relatively limited in scope when compared to other jurisdictions, largely due to their restricted subject matter, which is confined to consumer and environmental matters.

However, there is a gradual increase in their use, particularly in the context of consumer protection, where regulatory scrutiny and public awareness have grown. At the same time, the evolving judicial landscape and the broader procedural reforms currently underway may influence how collective actions are developed and adjudicated in practice.

Another notable trend is the growing interest in alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration and mediation, as parties seek greater predictability and procedural control. While these mechanisms do not replace collective actions, they are increasingly considered as complementary tools within the broader dispute resolution framework.

In any legal proceedings, parties must adduce evidence to substantiate their claims, but that evidence must relate to the matters in dispute to be admissible. Additional rules apply depending on the nature of the information. For instance, financial information is protected by banking secrecy, which bars financial institutions from disclosing client data. However, this secrecy may be lifted if the information is requested by the Federal Superior Audit Office, the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV), the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF), the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the tax authorities or under a court order.

The concept of “privilege” as understood in common law jurisdictions is not recognised under Mexican law. Nonetheless, Mexican law provides for equivalent doctrines that fulfil a similar function. Certain legally recognised figures do permit withholding information, such as professional secrecy, trade secrets and personal data. However, this secrecy may be lifted if the information is requested by the Federal Superior Audit Office, the National Banking and Securities Commission (CNBV), the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF), the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the tax authorities or under a court order.

In Mexico, confidentiality alone is not a valid ground for withholding information. Mexican law follows the principle onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit: the party asserting a claim bears the burden of proof. Parties must therefore submit all relevant information in their possession to substantiate their claims or defences. If a party needs information held by the opposing party, it may request a court order for disclosure.

In Mexico, witness evidence is one of the oldest forms of proof and is also known as a “witness statement”. A witness is any person with knowledge of the disputed facts who is not a party to the proceedings. Procedural law requires that witnesses testify truthfully, with integrity, impartiality, and that they have no interest in the outcome of the case. Following examination-in-chief by the calling party, the witness is subject to cross-examination by the counterparty. The witness shall answer all questions in both examinations truthfully, with integrity and impartiality.

Expert evidence is admissible in Mexican proceedings. The proponent must appoint a duly qualified expert to respond to the interrogatories it submits. The counterparty is entitled to supplement the interrogatories and designate its own expert, resulting in two party-appointed experts. Where the expert reports conflict, the court shall appoint a third, independent expert to resolve the discrepancies.

Recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment in Mexico requires exequatur proceedings, subject to the following conditions:

• compliance with the Inter-American Convention on Service Abroad;
• no in rem action;
• jurisdiction of the issuing court under international law and consistency with the Commercial Code;
• due service and opportunity to defend;
• res judicata effect in the country of origin;
• no lis pendens in Mexico;
• no breach of public policy; and
• authentication of the judgment.

The Special Commercial Transactions Proceedings provided in the Commercial Code is the procedure through which a request is made for the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award rendered in an arbitration conducted domestically or abroad.

The duration is contingent on judicial caseload; ordinarily, enforcement proceedings are concluded within two to three years.

Under Mexican law, the grounds for a party to resist or oppose the enforcement of a foreign judgment or an arbitral award are closely related, although there are some differences.

The grounds for setting aside an arbitral award, whether rendered in Mexico or abroad, are as follows. 

• A party to the arbitration agreement lacked capacity, or the agreement is invalid under the governing law. 
• A party was not given proper notice of the arbitrator’s appointment or the proceedings or was otherwise unable to present its case. 
• The award deals with a dispute not contemplated by the arbitration agreement or contains decisions beyond its scope. 
• The composition of the tribunal or the arbitral procedure did not accord with the parties’ agreement. 
• The subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration under Mexican law. 
• The award conflicts with Mexican public policy.

The grounds for opposing enforcement of a foreign judgment, which are distinct from those for arbitral awards, include: 

• failure to comply with the formalities under the Inter-American Convention on Service Abroad;
• the judgment arises from an in rem action;
• the judgment lacks res judicata effect in the country of origin;
• the underlying claim is subject to lis pendens before a Mexican court; and 
• absence of reciprocity – ie, the enforcing party cannot prove that Mexican judgments are enforceable in the country of origin in similar cases.

There are no specific laws yet; however, recent Supreme Court guidelines set ethical rules for using artificial intelligence. These rules require strict data protection, clear transparency and mandatory human supervision.

Federal courts now officially allow artificial intelligence to help calculate financial guarantees. This makes the process much faster without taking away the judge’s fundamental role in making decisions.

Supreme Court publications show a careful acceptance of technology to help with administrative and mathematical tasks. This is expected to grow slowly within strict limits, ensuring that artificial intelligence only assists, rather than replaces, human judges and lawyers.