Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

Qualified attorney (Japan & NY), CIPP/E & CIPP/US, MCIArb, CFE — guiding Japanese corporate law & compliance.

Punitive Damages and Japanese Public Policy: Supreme Court Draws the Line on Enforcing Foreign Judgments

Date of Judgment: July 11, 1997 Supreme Court of Japan, Second Petty Bench When a party wins a monetary judgment in a foreign court, they often seek to have that judgment recognized and enforced in other countries where the defendant may have assets. However, domestic courts will typically refuse to

Can a Party Obtain an Injunction to Stop Harmful Conduct Under Japanese Tort Law?

While monetary damages are the primary remedy for torts under Article 709 of the Japanese Civil Code, financial compensation alone is often insufficient to address ongoing or anticipated harm. In situations where harm is continuous, likely to recur, or of a nature that money cannot adequately redress, victims may seek

What Remedies Are Available for Defamation and Invasion of Privacy Under Japanese Law?

In an increasingly interconnected world, the protection of an individual's reputation and personal sphere from unwarranted intrusion is a significant legal concern. Japanese law provides avenues for redress when a person's honor is wrongfully attacked (defamation - 名誉毀損 - meiyo kison) or their privacy and personality

How Does Japanese Law Handle Torts Committed by Multiple Actors (Joint Torts)?

When harm is caused by the actions of more than one person or entity, determining the liability of each involved party can become complex. Japanese law addresses such situations through primarily two frameworks: "concurrent torts" (競合的不法行為 - kyōgōteki fuhō kōi), where individual tortious acts converge to cause harm,

What is Japan's Product Liability Act and When Can Manufacturers Be Held Liable?

In an era of complex global supply chains and technologically advanced products, the issue of liability for harm caused by defective products is a critical concern for manufacturers, distributors, and consumers alike. Japan addressed this through its Product Liability Act (製造物責任法 - Seizōbutsu Sekinin Hō), enacted in 1994 and effective

Enforcing Foreign Judgments in Japan: Supreme Court Decodes Service, Appearance, and Jurisdiction

Date of Judgment: April 28, 1998 Supreme Court of Japan, Third Petty Bench The ability to recognize and enforce judgments rendered by foreign courts is crucial for international commerce and comity. In Japan, Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) lays down the conditions that a foreign judgment

When is an Employer Liable for Torts Committed by its Employees in Japan?

In Japan, as in many jurisdictions, employers can be held legally responsible for wrongful acts committed by their employees that cause harm to third parties. This principle, known as "employer liability" (使用者責任 - shiyōsha sekinin), is primarily governed by Article 715 of the Japanese Civil Code. Understanding the

How Do a Victim's Own Negligence or Pre-existing Conditions Affect Damage Awards in Japan?

Even when a tortfeasor's liability for causing harm is established under Japanese law, the final amount of damages awarded to the victim can be significantly influenced by the victim's own conduct or inherent characteristics. Two key legal doctrines come into play in such situations: "comparative

What Happens if the Tortfeasor Lacks Legal Capacity in Japan?

In Japanese tort law, while liability is generally predicated on the fault (intent or negligence) of the tortfeasor, the law also takes into account the actor's capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. This gives rise to the concept of "capacity to bear responsibility&

Can Indirect Victims Claim Damages for Torts Committed Against Others in Japan?

Tort law traditionally focuses on providing remedies to those who are directly harmed by a wrongful act. However, the repercussions of a tort can often extend beyond the immediate victim, causing losses to third parties. These individuals or entities are sometimes referred to as "indirect victims" (間接被害者 -

When a Person Dies Due to a Tort in Japan, Can Their Heirs Claim Damages?

The death of an individual due to a tortious act raises profound legal questions, particularly concerning the rights of surviving family members to seek compensation. Under Japanese law, while the general principle is that an heir inherits the property rights of the deceased, including outstanding claims for damages, the specifics

Enforcing U.S. Judgments in Japan: Supreme Court on Jurisdiction in Trade Secret Case

Date of Judgment: April 24, 2014 Supreme Court of Japan, First Petty Bench When a company obtains a favorable judgment in a foreign court, seeking to enforce that judgment in Japan involves navigating Japan's rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions. A critical hurdle is

What Types of Damages Can Be Claimed and How Are They Calculated in Japanese Torts?

When a tortious act causes harm in Japan, the primary remedy available to the victim is monetary compensation for damages (損害賠償 - songai baishō). Understanding the types of damages that can be claimed and the principles governing their calculation is essential for both plaintiffs and defendants in tort litigation. This

How is Causation Established in Japanese Tort Claims?

In any tort claim, establishing a causal link between the defendant's wrongful act and the plaintiff's harm is a fundamental requirement. Japanese tort law is no exception. Proving causation (因果関係 - inga kankei) can be one of the most complex aspects of litigation, involving both factual

What Constitutes 'Intent' or 'Negligence' Under Japanese Tort Law?

Under Japan's fault-based tort liability system, enshrined in Article 709 of the Civil Code, establishing that a tortfeasor acted with either "intent" (故意 - koi) or "negligence" (過失 - kashitsu) is a prerequisite for holding them liable for damages. These mental elements, or lack

How Does Japanese Law Define "Infringement of Rights or Legally Protected Interests" in Tort Cases?

A fundamental element for establishing tort liability under Article 709 of the Japanese Civil Code is the "infringement of any right of others, or legally protected interest of others." This phrase, particularly the inclusion of "legally protected interests" following a 2004 amendment, represents a significant evolution

What are the Core Principles of Tort Liability in Japan?

Understanding the framework of tort liability is crucial for anyone navigating the legal landscape in Japan. This article outlines the fundamental principles governing civil wrongs, primarily drawing from the Japanese Civil Code and established legal interpretations. The Foundation: Article 709 of the Civil Code The cornerstone of Japanese tort law

A 'Divorce Catch-22': Japanese Supreme Court on Jurisdiction When Foreign Decrees Aren't Recognized

Date of Judgment: June 24, 1996 Supreme Court of Japan, Second Petty Bench International marriages can sometimes lead to complex legal situations if they break down, especially when divorce proceedings occur in different countries. A particularly challenging scenario arises if a divorce granted in one spouse's country of

Divorce Across Borders: How Japan's Supreme Court Established Jurisdiction When a Spouse is Missing

Date of Judgment: March 25, 1964 Supreme Court of Japan, Grand Bench Obtaining a divorce can be complicated, but when international elements are involved—such as differing nationalities or a spouse residing abroad, especially if their whereabouts are unknown—the preliminary question of which country's courts even have

Too Connected to a Foreign Lawsuit? Japanese Supreme Court Declines Jurisdiction in International Defamation Case

Date of Judgment: March 10, 2016 Supreme Court of Japan, First Petty Bench Even when Japanese courts technically have the authority to hear an international case, they possess a statutory power to decline jurisdiction if "special circumstances" suggest that proceeding would be unfair to the parties or hinder

Beyond Black Letter Law: Japan's Supreme Court on "Special Circumstances" in International Jurisdiction

Date of Judgment: November 11, 1997 Supreme Court of Japan, Third Petty Bench When a legal dispute has international elements, one of the first hurdles is determining which country's courts have the authority—the international adjudicatory jurisdiction—to hear the case. For many years, before Japan specifically codified

Choosing Your Court: Japanese Supreme Court Upholds International Jurisdiction Agreement in Shipping Case

Date of Judgment: November 28, 1975 Supreme Court of Japan, Third Petty Bench In the realm of international trade and commerce, parties often seek to create predictability by agreeing in advance where potential disputes arising from their contracts will be heard. These "choice-of-court agreements" or "jurisdiction agreements&

Warning Letters Across Borders: Japanese Supreme Court on Jurisdiction in International Copyright Disputes

Date of Judgment: June 8, 2001 Supreme Court of Japan, Second Petty Bench In an interconnected global economy, intellectual property disputes often transcend national borders. A common scenario involves a party in one country sending warning letters to entities in another, alleging infringement of rights. This can lead to complex

Foundations of International Jurisdiction in Japan: The Malaysian Airline System Landmark Case

Date of Judgment: October 16, 1981 Supreme Court of Japan, Second Petty Bench Before Japan comprehensively codified its rules on international adjudicatory jurisdiction in its Code of Civil Procedure in 2011, the principles governing when Japanese courts could hear cases involving foreign parties or foreign elements were largely developed through

Sovereign Immunity Redefined: Japanese Supreme Court Adopts Restrictive Approach

Date of Judgment: July 21, 2006 Supreme Court of Japan, Second Petty Bench The principle of sovereign immunity, which traditionally shielded foreign states from the jurisdiction of domestic courts, has undergone significant evolution globally. Historically, the doctrine of "absolute immunity" prevailed, granting states broad protection from lawsuits. However,