Mexico’s legal system is grounded in the civil law tradition, rooted in Roman-Germanic principles rather than the common law framework, and follows an adversarial model. The main sources of law are codes, statutes and regulations, at both the federal and local levels. Judicial precedents do play a role, but they are not automatically binding; a case only acquires binding authority if it meets specific requirements under the Amparo Law, which governs the constitutional review of government actions.

This structure shapes the country’s litigation process in several ways. Legal proceedings are primarily conducted in writing, although recent reforms have introduced procedures that combine written submissions and oral arguments in certain areas, including civil and commercial law.

Mexico’s judiciary operates under a dual structure, consisting of federal and state (local) courts, each empowered by the Constitution and relevant legislation to handle distinct areas of jurisdiction.

Federal Courts

At the federal level, the system is led by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which sits at the top of the hierarchy. Beneath it are:

• collegiate circuit courts, which serve as appellate bodies and also exercise review over local courts;
• collegiate appellate courts, which function mainly as appellate bodies; and
• district courts, which serve as courts of first instance and also exercise review over local courts.

Federal courts deal with two groups of cases: amparo proceedings and ordinary proceedings. Depending on the judicial circuit, federal courts may be organised by subject matter, or may hear cases from all subject matters. They are usually divided into:

• civil courts, which decide civil and commercial cases;
• criminal courts;
• administrative courts; and
• labour courts.

Local Courts

Each state judiciary operates independently, featuring:

• appellate courts, which review lower court decisions; and
• trial courts of first instance, typically divided by subject matter (for example, civil, commercial, family or criminal courts).

In commercial disputes, there is always concurrent jurisdiction, allowing a claimant to choose between federal or local courts. At both the federal and local levels, there are specialised courts that hear administrative, labour and electoral matters.

Constitutional Reform

The 2024 constitutional reform, implemented in 2025, has significantly reshaped the judiciary, with judges at all levels now being replaced and elected by popular vote. These changes have sparked debate over potential effects on judicial independence and stability, as well as legal certainty.

Length of Proceedings

Litigation duration depends on jurisdiction and complexity. Most civil and commercial cases reach trial within 12 to 36 months, but complex matters can take longer.

While court proceedings in Mexico are public, access to the case file is limited to the parties, their legal representatives and the court. Third parties may obtain access only through judicial authorisation, and if they demonstrate a legitimate interest or connection to the case.

In commercial proceedings, Article 1069 of the Code of Commerce specifically regulates the qualifications required for legal representatives as follows.

Particular Requirements

Lawyers must hold a valid law degree and be admitted to practice in Mexico through a professional license issued by the Ministry of Public Education. This licence serves as the formal authorisation to practise law nationwide, and is a prerequisite for representing clients before any court or tribunal in Mexico.

Rights of Audience

Only authorised legal representatives may file pleadings, appear in hearings and address the court.

Parties may represent themselves in civil and commercial disputes, but self-representation is rare in most proceedings.

Foreign Lawyers

A foreign lawyer may not act as counsel before a court, as they would require a professional licence to do so and this licence is only granted to lawyers who hold a professional degree issued in Mexico. However, they may be granted a power of attorney for litigation (poder para pleitos y cobranzas) and act as their client’s legal representative.

In civil proceedings, regulation varies regarding the legislation of each state, but the requirements for legal representatives are very similar.

Third-party litigation funding is permitted in Mexico, but it remains completely unregulated. There are no specific statutes governing such arrangements, which are generally treated as commercial contracts subject to the principles of general contract law.

While third-party funding is still uncommon in domestic litigation, it is utilised increasingly in arbitration. Mexican procedural law does not currently impose disclosure requirements or statutory limitations on these agreements. As arbitration and complex commercial disputes continue to grow, private funding mechanisms are expected to expand.

In Mexico, there are no statutory limits on the types of lawsuits that may be subject to third-party funding.

Third-party funding in Mexico remains unregulated and, in principle, may be arranged by either party in a dispute.

Mexico does not impose any legal minimum or maximum limits on the amount that a third-party funder may provide. The funding terms are entirely contractual, negotiated between the funder and the party involved.

The size of the investment typically depends on factors such as the value of the claim, anticipated litigation or arbitration costs, and the likelihood of success in recovering the funded amount.

A third-party funder may agree to finance a variety of litigation or arbitration-related costs, depending on the terms of the funding arrangement and the risk assessment of the case. These expenses can include:

• attorneys’ fees and related legal expenses;
• expert witness and evidentiary costs;
• translation, filing and procedural fees; and
• in certain situations, adverse costs or enforcement-related expenses.

The scope of coverage is determined on a case-by-case basis, reflecting the value, complexity and risk profile of the dispute.

In Mexico, lawyers can enter into contingency fee agreements, which are especially prevalent in civil, commercial and tort cases. Under these arrangements, the lawyer’s compensation depends on the success of the case, usually calculated as a percentage of the amount in dispute.

There is no statutory cap or prohibition on such agreements. They are governed primarily by the principle of freedom of contract, allowing attorneys and clients to negotiate terms that are mutually acceptable, as long as they comply with general legal and ethical standards.

In Mexico, there are no formal deadlines within the litigation process for securing third-party funding. Nonetheless, in practice, parties typically seek funding at the outset or early stages of a case. This timing gives potential funders sufficient opportunity to evaluate the merits of the claim, estimate costs and assess enforceability, ensuring that financing is available when it is most needed to advance the proceedings.

In Mexico, civil and commercial litigation does not require any pre-action procedures. Parties can typically initiate proceedings directly before the competent court without first engaging in negotiations, sending formal notices or attempting mediation, unless a specific law or contractual clause dictates otherwise.

However, Mexican law regulates alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, which are voluntarily applicable to all civil and commercial proceedings. Agreements reached by the parties to a dispute through such mechanisms may acquire binding force through a judicial declaration.

In Mexico, statutes of limitations for civil claims are established under substantive law, primarily the Federal Civil Code and local civil codes. In accordance with Article 1159 of the Federal Civil Code, the general limitation period for civil actions is ten years, with certain claims being subject to shorter periods. Approximately the same time limits apply under commercial law.

Limitation periods can be interrupted by events such as filing a lawsuit or acknowledgment of the debt, and they may be suspended in specific circumstances, such as when force majeure prevents action. Courts do not enforce limitation periods automatically: the defendant must raise the limitation defence for it to apply.

To be sued in a proceeding, it is sufficient for the claimant to designate a person as the defendant. This compels that person to appear in court and present a defence. However, the defendant’s standing may later be reviewed, and the defendant may recover court costs from the claimant if the court determines that they should not have been brought into the proceedings.

Territorial jurisdiction is usually determined by the defendant’s domicile, although exceptions exist, such as contractual forum selection clauses.

These provisions are likewise set forth in the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, the corresponding local procedural codes and the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, which is in the process of gradual implementation in Mexico and is scheduled to take full effect nationwide by 2027.

Pursuant to Article 1378 of the Code of Commerce and Article 864 of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, a lawsuit in Mexico is initiated by filing a written complaint (demanda), which must contain several key elements, including:

• identification and domicile of the parties;
• a clear statement of facts along with the legal basis for the claim;
• the relief or remedy sought; and
• an inventory of evidence intended to support the claim.

The complaint must be accompanied by relevant documents, such as contracts, powers of attorney or identification. Any foreign documents must be translated into Spanish and apostilled or legalised, depending on the country of origin.

Amendments to the complaint are generally permitted before the defendant is served. After service of process, the claimant may not amend the claim.

In Mexico, once a complaint (demanda) is admitted by the court, service of process is carried out by court authorities, not by the parties themselves. Nevertheless, the claimant must provide the domicile of the adversary or request that the court ascertains their address.

• Domestic service generally requires personal delivery at the defendant’s domicile. If the defendant cannot be located, the court may permit service by publication in the official gazette or other authorised media (edictos).
• Defendants domiciled in Mexico but outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court can be served through letters of request (exhorto), which are addressed to the judge who has jurisdiction in the place where the service is to be effected.
• Defendants domiciled outside Mexico can be served through letters rogatory, in accordance with applicable international treaties such as the Hague Service Convention. This process ensures compliance with both Mexican law and the legal requirements of the foreign jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has consistently affirmed that proper service is essential for due process. Federal courts have established additional procedural requirements and formalities, in various precedents, which must be observed during service of process, beyond those expressly prescribed by law. Failure to effect service correctly can invalidate proceedings or cause delays until the defendant has been duly notified.

Mexican law establishes different time limits for defendants to respond to a claim, which vary depending on the type of proceeding and the subject matter of the case. If the defendant fails to submit a response within the applicable period, the court must declare the defendant in default (rebeldía).

If the defendant is duly served with a personal delivery and fails to submit a response, the facts alleged in the claim are deemed admitted. If the defendant is served by publication in the Official Gazette or through other means, the facts of the claim are deemed denied.

Once the default is declared, the proceedings continue without the defendant’s response. Under civil and commercial procedural rules, the defendant may still take part in subsequent stages of the proceeding. However, the defendant faces difficulties in mounting a defence under these circumstances, as they will have lost the right to submit documents, to respond to the claimant’s allegations and, in some proceedings, to offer evidence, unless they demonstrate that their failure to respond was due to a circumstance that rendered them completely unable to do so.

In Mexico, representative or collective actions (acciones colectivas) are available but are limited to specific areas. Article 862 of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure establishes that such actions may be brought in matters involving:

• consumer protection;
• environmental damage;
• financial services; and
• competition law.

Only certain entities or subjects are entitled to initiate these actions, including the Federal Consumer Protection Agency (PROFECO), a group of at least a specific number of people, the Office of the Attorney General, the Federal Public Defender’s Institute and duly qualified non-profit organisations.

Collective actions in Mexico follow an opt-in model, meaning that individuals must actively join the proceeding in order to be bound by its outcome. These actions require certification by court before the proceeding; although the framework exists, their practical use remains limited compared to other jurisdictions.

In Mexico, lawyers are not legally required to provide a formal cost estimate at the start of litigation, but ethical guidelines encourage attorneys to ensure clarity and transparency regarding fees. In practice, it is common for clients and lawyers to agree on fees – whether hourly, fixed or contingency-based – in writing before initiating proceedings, helping to manage expectations and avoid disputes over costs.

Pursuant to Article 1168 of the Code of Commerce, Article 389 of the Federal Civil Code and Article 404 of the gradually implemented National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, parties may request interim measures (providencias precautorias or medidas cautelares) prior to the commencement of trial, in order to obtain precautionary or procedural relief. These applications are not limited to case management issues and may include:

• asset freezes;
• orders preventing a person from leaving the court’s jurisdiction;
• injunctions requiring or prohibiting specific acts; and
• measures to preserve the prevailing situation.

To obtain such relief, the applicant must demonstrate both a risk of irreparable harm if the court fails to act promptly, and a prima facie case as to the validity of the underlying claim. The request must be submitted through a formal petition that satisfies all procedural requirements.

The court retains discretion to grant such measures as necessary to protect the parties’ rights while the main proceedings are pending. In most cases, the applicant is required to provide a bond or guarantee to secure potential damages arising from the enforcement of the interim relief.

Under Mexican law, parties cannot apply for early judgment on any or all issues in dispute, nor can they request that the opposing party’s case be struck out prior to trial or a substantive hearing. Mexican procedural law does not provide broad summary judgment mechanisms.

In Mexico, civil and commercial proceedings do not include a pre-trial stage; litigation begins with the filing of the claim. Nevertheless, the defendant may raise procedural defences (excepciones procesales) aimed at terminating the proceedings at an early stage (sobreseimiento). These defences do not bar the commencement of the case but may prevent it from continuing. The defendant may invoke various defences, such as res judicata, lis pendens, the existence of related proceedings (conexidad) or the failure to satisfy the time limit or condition to which the action is subject.

A lawsuit may be joined by third parties if they can demonstrate a direct legal interest in the matter. Such participation, referred to as a Tercerías coadyuvantes, requires the filing of a formal petition before the court. The judge will assess the request based on its timeliness, the relevance of the interest, and whether it could prejudice the original parties. Compliance with procedural rules, including deadlines and evidentiary requirements, is mandatory.

Under Mexican law, a defendant cannot generally apply for an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for the defendant’s costs.

The costs associated with enforcing interim measures granted by the court are borne by the party requesting such measures. In addition, the requesting party is usually required to provide security for any potential damages that may result from the measures. This security can take the form of a bond or other guarantee, and the court determines the amount required. In some cases, the court may waive this requirement if the requesting party demonstrates sufficient financial solvency. While legal provisions do not always specifically address costs for interim applications, it may be argued that a party acting in bad faith could be ordered to cover the opposing party’s costs.

Interim applications are generally resolved more swiftly than ordinary proceedings. The exact timeframe depends on the court, the nature of the relief sought and the complexity of the matter. Urgent applications may be heard within approximately three days, whereas non-urgent motions usually follow the regular procedural timetable, which may extend over several weeks. The law does not provide expressly for expedited or urgent procedures in civil or commercial matters. Applicants must strictly comply with all formal requirements and deadlines, as any procedural defect may delay consideration of the request.

Mexico does not operate a pre-trial discovery system. Instead, evidence is disclosed formally and under court supervision, in accordance with the applicable procedural rules, such as the Code of Commerce or the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure.

Parties are generally responsible for presenting their own evidence, including documents, expert reports and witness testimony, with no general duty to produce adverse evidence held by the opposing party. However, any evidence that establishes a fact unfavourable to the party who submitted it shall have full probative value with respect to that fact.

A party may request the court to order the opposing party to produce a specific document, but the following conditions may apply:

• the document must exist and must be clearly identified;
• the document must be relevant to the case; and
• the party must state that the document cannot be obtained by other means.

Witness testimony is usually given in court during the evidentiary phase, and there are no extensive mechanisms for depositions or broad pre-trial discovery.

Obtaining a disclosure from third parties is possible but strictly controlled by the court. The party requesting production must:

• precisely identify the document sought and the third party holding it; and
• demonstrate the document’s relevance to the case.

Public authorities are generally obliged to co-operate, and may be required to produce administrative or official records, except where disclosure is restricted for national security or confidentiality reasons.

As a general rule, the parties are required to produce all documents that are relevant to their position either with the statement of claim or with the response. If a party does not have a document in its possession, it may demonstrate that it has requested it so that it may be later submitted; alternatively, it may ask the court to require the relevant authority or institution to produce it.

Where a party seeks to rely on evidence held by the opposing party, and the court orders its production, the opposing party is bound to comply. Failure to do so will result in the fact sought to be proven being deemed admitted.

After the statement of claim and the statement of defence have been filed, the court may not admit further documents, unless they post-date those pleadings or the party submitting them was previously unaware of their existence.

Without a formal discovery system, evidence is introduced through a controlled evidentiary phase. Parties are responsible for presenting their supporting evidence, which may include:

• documents relevant to the claim or defence;
• witness testimony offered in court;
• expert reports prepared for technical or specialised matters; and
• judicial inspections or confessions when necessary.

In accordance with Article 1203 of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, the court oversees the production, examination and admissibility of all evidence. This reflects Mexico’s civil law tradition, in which the collection and management of evidence are primarily directed by the court rather than by the parties.

Mexico recognises professional secrecy rather than the common law concept of attorney-client privilege. Lawyers are ethically and criminally bound to keep information obtained through their professional work confidential, under the Federal Criminal Code and professional conduct rules.

This obligation is personal to the lawyer and does not automatically prevent courts from admitting the information if disclosed by another source. Lawyers may refuse to testify about matters covered by this duty. Generally, the law does not differentiate between in-house and external counsel; however, in matters of competition, certain distinctions may arise regarding the treatment of in-house versus external legal counsel.

Parties can lawfully withhold documents if they fall under protected categories, including:

• lawyer professional secrecy;
• personal or sensitive data;
• banking, fiduciary or commercial secrecy; and
• classified or restricted governmental information.

Pursuant to Article 404 of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, injunctions in Mexico are primarily intended to protect rights or preserve the subject matter of a dispute before or during litigation, particularly when there is a risk of irreparable harm. Courts may grant measures such as the following.

• A restriction on the defendant’s travel, requiring the defendant not to leave the jurisdiction of the trial without leaving a duly authorised and sufficiently informed representative to respond to the outcomes of the proceedings (radicación de persona).
• Precautionary attachments or asset freezes to prevent dissipation, secure enforcement of a future judgment or maintain the ability to satisfy a claim.
• Mandatory or prohibitory injunctions ordering a party to perform specific acts or refrain from conduct that could harm the applicant’s rights.
• Preservation measures to safeguard evidence, documents or property essential to the litigation.

The Code of Commerce only provides for the applicability of the first two types of injunctive relief in commercial proceedings, but the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has held in various precedents that other types of measures may also be granted. Applicants must demonstrate urgency and prima facie validity, and courts apply strict procedural requirements to grant relief.

Mexican civil and commercial law does not have a formal “out-of-hours” judicial system, but courts are accustomed to fast-tracking urgent precautionary measures. Once a properly filed petition is submitted – usually with a guarantee to cover potential damages – the judge can act immediately. The exact timeframe depends on the court, the complexity of the relief requested and strict compliance with procedural requirements.

In civil and commercial cases, every injunctive relief is obtained on an ex parte basis.

This regulation will be different in the future. The National Code of Civil and Family Procedure has not yet entered into full effect, as its complete enforcement will take place in 2027. Under this statute, injunctive relief in judicial proceedings is determined in two successive stages: an initial or provisional stage and a subsequent, definitive stage. Interim or precautionary measures may be granted ex parte, without prior notice to the respondent. However, pursuant to Articles 408 and 409 of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, to render the precautionary measure definitive, the affected party must be heard. The applicant must show that notifying the other party beforehand would jeopardise the relief and that irreparable harm would result from delay.

Applicants may be held liable for losses suffered by the respondent if the injunction is later discharged, and they must furnish security to cover potential damages, particularly in ex parte requests where the respondent has not had an opportunity to be heard. The decision to require security is discretionary, based on the potential harm to the respondent.

Injunctive relief is generally executed against assets within the jurisdiction of Mexican courts. Mexican courts cannot directly freeze or control worldwide assets; enforcement abroad would require recognition or co-operation by foreign courts under international treaties or private international law. Precautionary measures can, however, secure any assets located in Mexico, even if the defendant owns additional assets outside the country.

Injunctive relief can be obtained against third parties if they have a relevant legal connection to the dispute, such as holding, controlling or safeguarding assets or property involved in the case. Injunctive relief may also be obtained against third parties if they are authorities in the matter of the dispute. The applicant must demonstrate the third party’s role and justify the necessity of the injunction. Such measures are commonly used for asset attachment, account garnishment or the preservation of property where the third party has control.

Failure to comply with the terms of an injunction in Mexico can lead to serious legal consequences, depending on the type of precautionary measure involved. In cases of non-compliance with an injunction, the judge may issue coercive measures to ensure enforcement of the court’s order. These may include the imposition of fines, arrest or even imprisonment, depending on the seriousness and persistence of the non-compliance.

In Mexico, both oral and written proceedings coexist in civil and commercial litigation. Written proceedings are conducted primarily through written submissions, with the exception of a hearing at which witnesses and expert witnesses may be examined and cross-examined under judicial supervision. This format, however, imposes certain limitations on the scope and flexibility of questioning. By contrast, oral proceedings are conducted mainly through hearings, allowing for more dynamic interaction and greater latitude in examining and cross-examining witnesses and experts. In both types of proceedings, the trial concludes with a written judgment, which serves as the enforceable resolution of the case.

In Mexico, there are no hearings dedicated specifically to case management.

The closest procedural mechanism is the preliminary hearing in oral trials. Under Article 457 of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, this hearing serves to:

• streamline the procedure;
• encourage settlement or mediation through the relevant Judicial Branch Alternative Justice Centres;
• narrow the issues for debate;
• determine the admissibility or rejection of evidence; and
• set the date for the main trial.

However, it does not function as an ongoing case management mechanism to manage the overall timetable leading up to a trial.

Jury trials are not available in civil cases. All civil and commercial disputes are decided solely by judges, who evaluate the law, evidence and procedural matters.

Under Chapter XII, Book V of the Code of Commerce and Chapter II of the Second Title of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, the admission of evidence in Mexican courts is governed by strict procedural rules. Key requirements include:

• timeliness – evidence must be submitted within the deadlines set by the applicable procedural code;
• formal compliance – each piece of evidence must be properly offered according to procedural formalities, including authentication and presentation requirements; and
• relevance and materiality – evidence must relate directly to the issues in dispute.

Common forms of evidence include documents, confessional evidence, witness testimony, expert reports and judicial inspections. Late, incomplete or improperly presented evidence is generally inadmissible, reflecting the highly formalistic nature of Mexican civil procedure.

Expert testimony is permitted and commonly used in civil and commercial trials. Parties may submit expert reports to support their claims or defences, and in determined proceedings these experts can be examined and cross-examined during hearings. In exceptional circumstances, the court may designate its own independent expert to address contradictions between the parties’ experts or to clarify issues not resolved by their appointed experts.

In Mexico, court hearings are generally public, but their transcripts are not. The degree of openness varies depending on the type of proceeding, as access to hearing records is typically restricted. In cases of constitutional or public interest, hearings and (in some instances) their records may be made public, subject to the protection of personal data. In civil and commercial cases, hearings are open to the public, but transcripts are not ordinarily available.

In Mexico, judges take an active and hands-on role during oral proceedings, overseeing procedural compliance, directing the presentation of evidence, and questioning witnesses or experts when necessary. They may also rule on the admissibility or formulation of questions and follow-up questions, and on other procedural matters arising during the hearing. However, cases are not decided at the hearing itself but through a subsequent written judgment.

In contrast, in written proceedings, judges are not typically present during trial. Instead, their procedural functions are performed by court officers (secretarios de acuerdos), who ensure that all formalities are properly observed and recorded.

For commercial disputes, the duration of proceedings in Mexico varies significantly depending on the type of procedure, the complexity of the case, the number of parties involved and the court’s workload. Timelines are therefore assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Strict adherence to procedural deadlines and effective case management are essential to avoid unnecessary delays, as Mexican courts follow highly formalistic procedures that can substantially affect the overall duration of a case.

A commercial proceeding before a lower court may take between six and 12 months, although complex matters often extend beyond that period. The time required for appellate review depends on the instance of appeal. On average, a single appellate instance takes around six months. Oral proceedings generally allow only one level of appeal, whereas written proceedings permit two, which can extend the overall duration of the case to approximately one year.

Court approval is generally required for settlements that the parties wish to formalise with judicial effect and that will acquire the force of res judicata. The judge reviews the agreement to ensure that it is not contrary to applicable law or public policy, and whether it requires the parties to ratify their consent in court.

Once approved, the settlement is recorded in the court file and becomes enforceable as if it were a final judgment. Without judicial approval, the agreement remains a private contract and cannot be directly enforced through the courts.

Settlement agreements typically remain confidential.

In accordance with Article 974 of the National Code of Civil and Family Procedure, settlement agreements that are formally recorded with a court are enforceable as if they were a final judgment. Possible enforcement measures include:

• seizure of bank accounts;
• seizure and sale of assets; and
• orders for specific performance, depending on the subject matter of the settlement.

Under the Federal Civil Code, settlement agreements may only be set aside or challenged in limited circumstances, including:

• if the agreement is based on a null or void title, unless the parties have expressly agreed to address the nullity;
• if the agreement involves rights that cannot legally be waived;
• if it is based on documents that are later declared false by a final judicial decision;
• where new documents or titles are discovered, provided that bad faith is involved; and
• if the settlement concerns a matter that has already been decided by a final and binding court judgment, which was disregarded by the parties.

These provisions reflect the principle that settlement agreements are generally final and binding, and may only be invalidated under specific and narrowly defined conditions, ensuring legal certainty and the stability of resolved disputes.

At the full trial stage in Mexico, a successful litigant may obtain several forms of relief depending on the nature of the claim, as follows.

• Monetary damages (indemnización): compensation for actual losses, which may include both material damages and, in certain cases, moral (non-pecuniary) damages. In such cases, the successful party may attach and auction assets to satisfy the economic compensation awarded.
• Specific performance (cumplimiento forzoso): court orders compelling a party to fulfil contractual or legal obligations. While a court cannot directly compel an individual to act, it may require a third party to perform on behalf of the obligated party, at the latter’s expense, and under judicial supervision.
• Other judicial remedies: depending on the dispute, courts may order restitution, the annulment of contracts, or the transfer/delivery of property. In some circumstances, the judge may substitute necessary signatures or approvals, for example in cases of default or non-appearance (rebeldía).

In Mexico, damages are generally limited to compensatory relief, aimed at restoring the injured party to the position they would have been in absent the harm. Key points include the following.

• Punitive damages are available only in relation to moral (non-pecuniary) damages and not material losses, and require proof of an intention to cause harm. At times, courts have awarded damages under this concept based on the unlawfulness of the conduct and the intention to impose exemplary punishment for the behaviour.
• Causation and proof are required: damages must be directly linked to the harm suffered and supported by evidence.
• No statutory caps exist for compensatory damages in most cases, but claims must be reasonable.

This framework emphasises evidence-based proportionate compensation as a general rule, rather than punishment or deterrence.

In Mexico, a successful party may recover interest both before and after judgment.

Pre-Judgment Interest (Intereses Moratorios)

This accrues from the date the obligation arises until the judgment is rendered. For commercial obligations, the statutory interest rate is 6% per annum, while for civil obligations it is 9% per annum, unless the parties have agreed otherwise in their contract (such agreement shall not be usurious). The purpose of this interest is to compensate the creditor for any delay in the debtor’s performance of their obligations.

Post-Judgment Interest

This accrues from the date the final judgment is entered until full payment is made. The same statutory rates apply as for pre-judgment interest (6% commercial, 9% civil), unless a contract provides a different rate.

In both cases, interest begins to accrue once the obligation is due or otherwise enforceable.

In Mexico, domestic judgments are enforced through a separate enforcement phase (vía de apremio), conducted before the same court that issued the judgment once it becomes final – that is, when it is no longer subject to appeal or any suspensive remedy. Key enforcement mechanisms include:

• compulsory measures – courts may order the seizure of assets, garnishment of bank accounts or specific performance to ensure compliance, depending on the case;
• involuntary enforcement – if the losing party fails to comply voluntarily, court-appointed officers may execute asset attachments, conduct auctions or implement other enforcement actions; and
• precautionary measures – interim remedies may be applied to prevent the dissipation or concealment of assets during the enforcement process.

Article 1347-A of the Code of Commerce establishes that the enforcement of a foreign judgment in Mexico requires a judicial recognition procedure. The main steps in this procedure are as follows.

Filing a Petition

The party seeking enforcement submits a formal request to a competent Mexican court.

Documentary Requirements

A legalised or apostilled copy of the foreign judgment must be provided, along with proof that it is final and enforceable in the originating jurisdiction.

The Mexican Court

The court assesses:

• whether the formalities established in treaties to which Mexico is a party regarding rogatory letters from abroad have been fulfilled;
• that the judgment was not issued as a consequence of exercising an action in rem;
• that the foreign court or tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter in accordance with rules recognised under international law compatible with those adopted by Mexican law;
• that the defendant was personally notified to ensure the guarantee of a hearing and the opportunity to exercise their defence;
• that the judgment has the character of res judicata in the country where it was issued, or that no ordinary remedy exists against it;
• that the action giving rise to the judgment is not the subject of ongoing proceedings between the same parties before Mexican courts, or at least that the relevant rogatory letter or request for service has been processed and delivered to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the competent local authorities;
• that the obligation to be enforced is not contrary to Mexican public order; and
• that the judgment meets the necessary requirements to be considered authentic.

Despite compliance with all these requirements, the judge may still refuse enforcement if it is demonstrated that judgments are not enforced in similar cases in the country of origin.

Treaties and Conventions

Where applicable, treaties such as the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments may streamline the process. Once recognised, the foreign judgment is treated like a domestic judgment and may be executed through the same enforcement mechanisms.

In Mexico, litigants have several mechanisms to challenge judicial decisions.

• Ordinary Appeal (Apelación):
1. heard by a second-instance court;
2. reviews both factual and legal aspects of the first-instance judgment; and
3. available for final judgments and, in some cases, certain interlocutory rulings.
• Amparo (Constitutional Protection):
1. a separate constitutional review proceeding before federal courts;
2. while not formally considered a second level of appeal, it can serve a similar function in practice, as it allows the court to review the legality and constitutionality of a judgment or act; and
3. the proceeding may result in the annulment or modification of the challenged act if constitutional violations are identified.

This framework allows both review of the merits and protection of constitutional rights, although ordinary appeals primarily address factual and legal determinations from the first-instance court.

In Mexico, appeals of judgments are governed by the following general rules.

Right to Appeal

Final judgments may be appealed by the losing party, except in cases of oral proceedings.

In oral proceedings, review is available only through constitutional protection (Amparo), whereas in written proceedings the losing party may pursue both appeal and amparo remedies.

Scope of Appeal

Appellate courts review both legal and factual issues.

Common grounds for appeal include:

• errors of law or procedure;
• incorrect evaluation or interpretation of evidence; and
• violations of due process (eg, lack of proper notice, refusal to admit valid evidence).

Filing Deadlines

Appeals must be filed within statutory timeframes, depending on the applicable procedural code.

The procedure for taking an appeal in Mexico generally proceeds as follows.

Initiation

The appellant files a written notice of appeal (recurso de apelación) with the court that issued the judgment. This notice must include the appellant’s identification, the judgment being challenged, the specific errors alleged and the relief sought.

Review by the Lower Court

The first-instance court reviews whether the appeal meets the formal requirements (timeliness, proper parties and procedural compliance). Once validated, the court forwards the appeal file to the competent second-instance court for substantive review.

Appellate Review

The appellate process is primarily written, relying on the record of the lower court proceedings. The appellate court may confirm, modify or overturn the original judgment.

Suspension of Enforcement

Filing an appeal may suspend enforcement of the judgment if the appellant requests a stay (suspensión) and provides a bond or guarantee, unless the law explicitly prohibits suspension.

Timeframe/Triggering Events

The appeal must be filed within the statutory period, depending on the applicable procedural code. The triggering event is generally the formal notification of the judgment to the parties, not the date of the court’s decision.

Appellate courts review both legal and factual issues, as well as any errors raised by the appellant. The review is based primarily on the record from the first instance, and a full rehearing is rare. New evidence or claims are generally not permitted, except in cases involving procedural defects that affect due process or issues that could not have been raised earlier.

Courts may require certain formal and procedural conditions before an appeal is admitted. These typically include:

• filing the appeal within the statutory deadline;
• clearly identifying the specific parts of the judgment being challenged and the errors alleged by the appellant; and
• when requesting a stay of enforcement, providing a bond or guarantee.

Failure to meet these requirements may result in the appeal being dismissed or deemed inadmissible.

After hearing an appeal, the appellate court has the authority to confirm, partially or fully modify, or revoke the first-instance judgment, or to order a retrial if significant procedural defects or violations of due process are identified. Once the appellate decision is issued, it becomes final and enforceable, subject only to a subsequent amparo proceeding, which reviews compliance with constitutional rights, including the protection of legal guarantees.

In Mexico, civil and commercial litigation does not impose mandatory court filing fees for domestic or foreign parties. The main expenses arise from ancillary costs, which vary according to the complexity of the dispute.

In commercial matters, the rules of the state where the dispute had site apply subsidiarily. In Mexico City, the applicable law is the Seventh Title, Chapter I of the Organic Law of the Judiciary of Mexico City. These rules distinguish between cases of determined monetary value (cuantía determinada) and undetermined monetary value (cuantía indeterminada), as follows.

• Determined value cases – at first instance, the percentage of costs depends on the amount in dispute, although a general rate of 6% applies under Article 144, Section C. At second instance, this rate is increased by 2%.
• Undetermined value cases – Article 145 establishes various rules, depending on the type of procedural actions or motions undertaken during the proceedings, taking into account the volume of the writs and the case file.

This is also applicable for civil disputes.

Articles 1084 and 1085 of the Code of Commerce establish that Mexican courts consider several factors when awarding costs, including:

• acting in bad faith in litigation – ie, initiating legal action without just cause or based on false documents or testimony;
• being unsuccessful in an enforcement proceeding or commencing such a proceeding without having obtained a favourable judgment; and
• persisting in claims or defences that have already been rejected by two consistent final judgments.

These rules reflect both subjective and objective systems. The subjective system considers the party’s bad faith or reckless behaviour, while the objective system imposes costs automatically in certain situations, such as losing in enforcement proceedings or after two consistent final judgments.

When costs are awarded, they are regulated in favour of the prevailing party, covering both the substantive and procedural stages where applicable.

One significant limitation of the costs liquidation procedure in Mexico is that interest cannot be claimed on a costs award. Moreover, the procedure itself does not allow for a new or additional award of costs.

In Mexico, ADR is widely acknowledged as an effective and efficient means of resolving disputes while reducing court congestion and preserving relationships. The most commonly used ADR methods are mediation, arbitration and conciliation.

• Mediation is frequently employed in civil, commercial and family disputes, with courts and specialised centres actively encouraging parties to attempt it before proceeding to litigation.
• Arbitration is particularly common in commercial and investment matters, both domestic and international.
• Conciliation is commonly used in labour disputes and consumer claims, sometimes facilitated by government or professional bodies.

ADR in Mexico is generally viewed as faster, more flexible and less adversarial than formal litigation. While the degree of adoption varies across sectors and regions, it has gained significant prominence, especially in commercial and cross-border contexts.

The Mexican legal system actively promotes ADR by integrating it into court procedures while maintaining voluntary participation. Courts frequently encourage mediation or conciliation at the outset or during litigation, to facilitate early settlement. While ADR is voluntary, arbitration and mediation agreements are binding, and awards are enforceable under domestic law and international treaties.

ADR institutions in Mexico are generally well organised. Leading bodies such as the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC México), Mexican Arbitration Centre (CAM) and the Centre for Conciliation and Arbitration of CANACO provide structured procedures, accredited mediators and arbitrators, and clear rules for both mediation and arbitration.

Although accessibility and resources vary regionally, Mexico offers robust institutional support for ADR, making it a credible and effective alternative to litigation for both domestic and international parties.

Arbitration in Mexico is governed by the Code of Commerce, which incorporates the UNCITRAL Model Law. Parties are free to determine procedural rules, the number of arbitrators and the arbitration venue. Both domestic and international arbitration agreements are recognised and generally upheld by Mexican courts.

Arbitral awards are final, binding and enforceable, with judicial review limited to specific grounds such as incapacity, invalid agreements, due process violations or conflicts with public policy. As a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention, Mexico recognises and enforces foreign arbitral awards under the same limited exceptions.

Courts may assist arbitration by ordering interim measures or enforcing procedural agreements, but will not review the merits of the case. This framework makes arbitration a reliable and well-established alternative to litigation in Mexico.

Under Mexican law, certain disputes are considered non-arbitrable because they involve matters of public order or mandatory legal protections, such as labour rights or certain family matters.

In Mexico, parties may challenge an arbitral award before the competent courts only under specific and narrowly defined circumstances, as set forth in Article 1457 of the Code of Commerce. A challenge may be admitted only when the party seeking annulment proves one or more of the following.

• One of the parties to the arbitration agreement was under some incapacity, or the agreement itself is invalid under the law to which the parties have subjected it or, failing such indication, under Mexican law.
• The party was not duly notified of the appointment of an arbitrator or of the arbitral proceedings, or was otherwise unable to exercise its rights.
• The award deals with a dispute not contemplated by or beyond the terms of the arbitration agreement. However, if the provisions of the award that concern matters submitted to arbitration can be separated from those that do not, only the latter may be set aside.
• The composition of the arbitral tribunal or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement, unless such agreement conflicts with non-derogable provisions of the Code or, failing such agreement, was not in accordance with the Code itself.
• The court finds that, under Mexican law, the subject matter of the dispute is not capable of settlement by arbitration, or that the award is contrary to public policy (orden público).

Mexican courts do not review the merits of arbitral awards. Annulment is granted only when one of these statutory grounds is proven, thereby preserving the finality, enforceability and integrity of arbitral decisions in Mexico.

Under Article 1461 of the Code of Commerce, an arbitral award – regardless of the country in which it was issued – is recognised as binding and, upon filing a written petition with the court, will be enforced through the Special Proceedings for Commercial Transactions and Arbitration (Juicio Especial de Transacciones Comerciales y Arbitraje).

The party seeking to rely on an award or to request its enforcement must submit the original award duly authenticated or a certified copy, along with the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy of it. If the award or agreement is not in Spanish, the claimant must provide an official translation of the documents. In addition, at the claimant’s request, Mexican courts may grant precautionary measures to ensure the effectiveness of the award.

Mexico is implementing significant reforms that are reshaping the dispute resolution framework.

• National Code of Civil and Family Procedure (2023): this code standardises procedures across federal and state courts. Although it will not fully come into force until 2027, some cases are already proceeding under its rules.
• Judicial reform (2024): constitutional changes led to the removal of existing judges and the introduction of judicial elections, representing a total restructuring of the judiciary. This is a significant challenge for the administration of justice in Mexico in the coming years, with the risk of rendering it inefficient and insecure.

The primary growth area in Mexico for commercial disputes is energy, driven by the rising complexity of commercial transactions in the sector.