Civil litigation is a journey with many procedural steps and judicial interventions before a final judgment on the merits is reached. Along the way, Japanese courts issue numerous "rulings" – in the form of "decisions" (kettei 決定) and "orders" (meirei 命令) – that manage the proceedings,

After a judgment from a Japanese High Court (Kōtō saibansho 高等裁判所) in a civil matter, parties who remain dissatisfied may look towards the nation's highest judicial body, the Supreme Court of Japan (Saikō saibansho 最高裁判所). However, access to the Supreme Court is significantly more restricted than appeals to

Receiving an unfavorable judgment from a Japanese District Court (Chihō saibansho 地方裁判所) or Summary Court (Kan'i saibansho 簡易裁判所) in a civil case does not necessarily mean the end of the legal road. Japan's judicial system provides for a multi-tiered structure of appeals, and the primary avenue

Lawsuits, particularly complex commercial ones, can often extend over a significant period. During this time, the original parties to the litigation may undergo changes: an individual might pass away, a company might merge with another or be acquired, or the very right or obligation being disputed might be transferred to

In the landscape of civil litigation, disputes initially appearing to involve only two parties (a plaintiff and a defendant) can sometimes reveal deeper complexities where the rights of a third party are inextricably linked to the core subject matter. Japanese civil procedure offers a mechanism for such third parties to

Often, a lawsuit primarily involves two opposing parties, but its outcome can have significant legal ramifications for third parties who are not directly named as plaintiffs or defendants. If your business finds itself in a situation where a pending lawsuit between other entities could adversely affect its legal rights or

Modern business disputes are rarely simple one-on-one affairs. Often, multiple claimants may have related grievances against a single defendant, or a single plaintiff might have claims against several defendants whose actions are intertwined. Japanese civil procedure provides a mechanism to handle such multi-party scenarios efficiently and consistently through "Joinder

While many civil lawsuits in Japan proceed through contested hearings towards a judgment or are resolved via a bilateral settlement agreement, Japanese civil procedure also provides for mechanisms where a lawsuit, or a specific claim within it, can be terminated by a unilateral declaration of one of the parties. These

Initiating a lawsuit is a significant step, but circumstances can change during the course of litigation, leading a plaintiff to reconsider pursuing their case to a final judgment. In Japan, a plaintiff has the option to terminate the proceedings they started by "withdrawing the action," an act known

While many envision litigation culminating in a hard-fought trial and a definitive court judgment, a significant number of civil lawsuits in Japan are resolved through settlement. Among the various forms of settlement, the "in-court settlement," or Soshō-jō no wakai (訴訟上の和解), holds a particularly important place. This mechanism involves

A court judgment in Japan is intended to provide a final and definitive resolution to a dispute. However, like any human endeavor, the process of drafting and rendering judgments is not entirely immune to errors or oversights. What happens if a party discovers that a Japanese court's final

In a previous discussion, we explored Kihan-ryoku (既判力), or res judicata, the critical effect of a final Japanese court judgment that prevents the re-litigation of settled matters. However, the impact of a court judgment in Japan extends significantly beyond this preclusive effect. Judgments can empower parties to enforce obligations, directly

The ultimate aim of civil litigation is to achieve a final and conclusive resolution to a dispute. Once a court has rendered a judgment that becomes "final and binding," it is crucial for legal stability and the conservation of judicial resources that the same matter is not endlessly

The integrity of the judicial process hinges on the availability and truthful presentation of evidence. When a party to a lawsuit intentionally destroys, conceals, alters, or otherwise improperly withholds relevant evidence, this act, known as "spoliation of evidence" or, in Japanese, Shōmei bōgai (証明妨害 - obstruction of proof)

In the pursuit of truth and fairness in civil litigation, access to relevant documentary evidence is often paramount. However, crucial documents may reside in the hands of the opposing party or even non-party third parties. Japanese civil procedure provides a mechanism to compel the production of such documents through a

In any legal dispute, facts are paramount. But what happens when, after all evidence is presented, a crucial fact remains uncertain or unproven in the eyes of the court? This is where the "Burden of Proof," known in Japanese as Shōmei sekinin (証明責任), comes into play. It is

In any lawsuit, the determination of facts is a cornerstone upon which the final judgment rests. But how do judges in Japan weigh the evidence presented by opposing parties? Unlike systems that might have rigid, formal rules dictating the value of specific types of evidence, Japanese civil procedure operates under

The conduct of civil litigation in Japan is profoundly shaped by a fundamental doctrine known as the "Principle of Party Presentation," or Benron-shugi (弁論主義). Often equated with the adversarial principle found in common law systems, Benron-shugi places the primary responsibility for introducing factual allegations and evidence squarely on

Initiating a civil lawsuit in Japan, like in any sophisticated legal system, begins with a critical formal step: the preparation and submission of a foundational document known as the "complaint," or Sojō (訴状). This document doesn't just signal an intent to sue; it frames the entire

Even if a company believes it has a valid substantive claim and has identified the correct parties, initiating a lawsuit in Japan requires clearing several procedural hurdles. One of the most fundamental, yet sometimes elusive, is the "Interest to Sue," known in Japanese as Uttae no rieki (訴えの利益)

Beyond establishing whether an entity can be a party to a lawsuit in Japan (Tōjisha nōryoku 当事者能力) and whether it's the right party for a specific claim (Tōjisha tekikaku 当事者適格), another crucial procedural hurdle exists: "Capacity to Litigate," or Soshō nōryoku (訴訟能力). This concept refers to

Successfully navigating the Japanese legal system requires more than just a valid claim and the general capacity to be a party in court. A crucial, and sometimes complex, procedural hurdle is establishing "standing to sue or be sued," known in Japanese as Tōjisha tekikaku (当事者適格). This concept addresses

When a dispute arises and litigation in Japan is contemplated, a fundamental preliminary question must be addressed: who, or what, can actually participate as a plaintiff or a defendant in a Japanese court? This basic legal qualification is known as "Capacity to Be a Party," or Tōjisha nōryoku

Being served with a lawsuit is a serious matter for any business. When that lawsuit is filed in a foreign jurisdiction like Japan, an immediate concern, beyond the merits of the claim itself, is whether the chosen court actually has the authority – the jurisdiction – to hear the case. Generally, if

In the world of commerce, predictability is a prized asset. When drafting contracts, particularly those with international dimensions, one of the key clauses that can contribute to this predictability is the jurisdiction agreement, also known as a forum selection clause. This provision allows parties to pre-determine which country's