MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Fernando del Castillo Elorza, Sajid Arroyo, Andrea Hernández and Alexis Romero, Del Castillo & Castro Abogados
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 evi- dence to substantiate their claims, but that evidence must relate to the matters in dispute to be admis- sible. 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 Bank- ing and Securities Commission (CNBV), the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF), the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the tax authorities or under a court order. 8.2 Privilege 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 per- sonal data. However, this secrecy may be lifted if the information is requested by the Federal Superior Audit Office, the National Banking and Securities Commis- sion (CNBV), the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF), the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the tax authorities or under a court order. 8.3 Confidentiality 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 8. Evidence 8.1 Disclosure
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. 8.4 Witness Evidence 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. Proce- dural 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 truth- fully, with integrity and impartiality. 8.5 Expert Evidence Expert evidence is admissible in Mexican proceed- ings. The proponent must appoint a duly qualified expert to respond to the interrogatories it submits. The counterparty is entitled to supplement the interroga- tories 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; 9. Enforcement 9.1 Enforcement of Judgments
• no breach of public policy; and • authentication of the judgment.
372 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook