How are Japanese Court Fees Determined for Various "Neighboring Rights" Disputes?

Japanese Attorney at Law - Bengoshi L.L.

• 8 min read

Living and conducting business in close proximity inevitably gives rise to the need for rules governing interactions between occupants of adjacent or nearby properties. Japanese law, primarily through its Civil Code, addresses these through a set of principles known as "sōrin kankei" (相隣関係), often translated as "neighboring rights" or "neighboring land relationships." These provisions aim to balance the rights of property owners and users, facilitating harmonious co-existence and resolving conflicts that can range from access and drainage to construction, vegetation, and privacy.

When such disputes escalate to litigation, a practical concern for the parties involved is the calculation of court filing fees. In Japan, these fees are determined by the "value of suit" (訴額 - so'gaku). For the diverse array of claims that fall under the umbrella of neighboring rights, assessing the so'gaku often moves away from straightforward property valuations and frequently involves judicial discretion, analogies to other types of claims, or a focus on the specific benefit the plaintiff seeks.

This article explores how the so'gaku is commonly determined for various types of neighboring rights disputes, drawing upon analysis and critique found in Japanese legal commentary.

I. Disputes Concerning Land Use and Access

These disputes involve the rights and obligations of property owners regarding the use of or access across adjacent land.

A. Right to Use Neighboring Land (隣地使用請求 - Rinchi Shiyō Seikyū)

The Japanese Civil Code (Art. 209) grants landowners the right to request the use of adjacent land to the extent necessary for constructing or repairing walls or buildings on their own property. If the neighbor does not consent, the landowner can file a lawsuit to obtain a judgment substituting for that consent (this is a type of suit seeking an "expression of intent").

The "value of suit" for such a claim is based on the plaintiff's interest in temporarily using the neighbor's land. This is determined by the court's reasonable discretion, considering factors like the duration of the requested use, the scope of land to be used, and the nature of that land. In practice, this often translates to a relatively small fraction of the land's overall value or an amount equivalent to a short-term rental fee for the affected portion.

B. Right of Passage for Landlocked Property (囲繞地通行権 - Inyōchi Tsūkōken)

For parcels of land that are landlocked and have no other access to a public road, the Civil Code (Articles 210-213) provides a right of passage over surrounding land (inyōchi). Lawsuits often arise to determine the specific location, width, and method of this passage.

Calculating the so'gaku for these claims has seen varied approaches. Many practitioners, by analogy, apply So'gaku Notification No. 4 (which pertains to easements, typically valuing them at 1/3 of the value of the servient land). However, legal commentary, including the author of the source material, critiques this analogy. An easement (地役権 - chiekiken) often involves a burden or loss to the servient land as a key valuation factor, whereas the right of passage for landlocked property is fundamentally about the benefit conferred upon the landlocked parcel by gaining access.

A more analytically sound approach, therefore, is for the so'gaku to be determined by the court's reasonable discretion, using the increase in the value of the landlocked parcel due to obtaining the right of passage as a primary guiding factor.

Disputes concerning water flow, drainage, and the installation of related facilities are common between neighboring properties.

A. Surplus Water Discharge Rights (余水排泄権 - Yosui Haisetsuken)

The Civil Code (Art. 220) allows the owner of higher land, under certain conditions, to discharge surplus water (e.g., from drainage or agricultural/domestic use) through lower-lying land to reach a public watercourse or sewer system. Article 221 allows for the use of installations made by others for this purpose, with cost-sharing.

  • Claim by Higher Landowner for Water Passage: The dominant view for valuing a claim by a higher landowner to establish a water passage right across lower land has been to analogize to easements, applying So'gaku Notification No. 4 and taking 1/3 of the value of the strip of land necessary for the water passage as the so'gaku. The author of the source material critiques this due to the general issues with easement valuation analogies and suggests instead that the cost of installing the necessary water passage works should serve as a guide for the court's discretionary so'gaku determination.
  • Claim by Lower Landowner for Drainage Installation (to prevent harm): If a lower landowner sues a higher landowner to compel the installation of proper drainage facilities to mitigate harm from surplus water, this is often seen as an action to remove an interference, potentially based on the plaintiff's possessory rights. Some have applied So'gaku Notification No. 7(2) (for possessory claims, valuing at 1/3 of affected land value) or No. 4 (for easements) by analogy, resulting in a so'gaku of 1/3 the value of the plaintiff's land affected by the water. An alternative view suggests the so'gaku should be the lower of this 1/3 land value or the actual cost of the drainage facilities. The author of the source material again favors court discretion, using the installation costs as a primary guide.

The Sewerage Act (下水道法 - Gesuidō-hō, Articles 10 and 11) imposes obligations on property owners in serviced areas to connect to public sewers and grants rights to use neighboring land if necessary for such connections. Lawsuits may arise seeking a neighbor's consent for installing necessary pipes or facilities.
The dominant view for so'gaku here has also been to liken it to an easement, valuing the claim at 1/3 of the value of the portion of the neighbor's land required for the installation. Consistently, the author of the source material critiques this analogy and recommends that the so'gaku be determined by court discretion, with the actual or estimated cost of installing the drainage facilities as the more rational guiding factor.

III. Disputes Involving Vegetation and Construction

Encroaching vegetation and construction activities near property lines are frequent sources of neighborly friction.

A. Pruning Encroaching Tree Branches (竹木の枝の剪除請求 - Takuboku no Eda no Senjo Seikyū)

Civil Code Article 233(1) allows a landowner to demand that a neighbor prune branches from their trees or bamboo that encroach over the boundary line.
One view on the so'gaku for such a claim is to treat it as analogous to a possession-based claim for the removal of an interference, leading to a valuation of 1/3 of the value of the small area of land overhung by the branches. However, the author of the source material suggests the plaintiff's true interest is the removal of the nuisance itself. Therefore, the so'gaku should be determined by court discretion, guided by the utility value of the encroached-upon space, perhaps considered equivalent to a very short-term rental value for that minor area.

B. Halting or Altering Construction Near Boundaries (建物建築の中止・変更請求 - Tatemono Kenchiku no Chūshi / Henkō Seikyū)

The Civil Code (Art. 234(2)) mandates that buildings must generally be constructed at least 50 centimeters away from the boundary line, aimed at ensuring ventilation, light, access for repairs, and fire prevention.
For lawsuits seeking to halt or modify construction that violates this setback rule, traditional practice has often analogized to possession-based claims (So'gaku Notification 7(2)), taking 1/3 of the value of the 50cm strip of land along the boundary as the so'gaku. Some past views also likened these claims to easements. If the claim is for the removal of an already built encroaching portion, the so'gaku might be 1/3 of the value of the land directly under that encroachment.
The author of the source material critiques these analogies, arguing that the plaintiff's interest is in securing the specific benefits of the neighboring rights (light, air, etc.), which is not directly comparable to a possessory interest or a standard easement. Instead, the author favors an approach reminiscent of the earlier Meiji 23 Civil Procedure Code (Art. 4(2)), suggesting the so'gaku should be the increase in the value of the plaintiff's own land that results from securing the 50cm setback or preventing the infringing construction.

C. Abolition or Alteration of Wells, Ponds, etc. (井戸等の廃止・変更請求等 - Ido tō no Haishi / Henkō Seikyū tō)

Civil Code Article 237 prescribes minimum distances from boundary lines for digging wells, ponds, cesspools, etc.
One view on the so'gaku for claims enforcing these rules is to apply So'gaku Notification 7(2) by analogy (similar to construction halt claims), resulting in 1/3 of the value of the strip of land corresponding to the required setback distance. The author of the source material, however, argues that the plaintiff's interest is in preventing negative impacts on their own land (e.g., soil instability, contamination). Therefore, the so'gaku should be determined by the court's reasonable discretion, based directly on this preventative interest, rather than by a fixed land-value fraction.

D. Preventing Soil Collapse from Neighboring Excavation (土砂崩落等の防止請求 - Dosha Hōraku tō no Bōshi Seikyū)

Civil Code Article 238 imposes a duty of care on those undertaking excavations to prevent soil collapse or the leakage of water or contaminants onto adjacent land.
The prevailing view for valuing claims seeking preventative measures is to treat them as ownership or possession-based actions to avert interference. So'gaku Notification 7(2) is often applied by analogy, leading to a so'gaku of 1/3 of the value of the plaintiff's land anticipated to be affected by such collapse or leakage. If this area is difficult to specify, 1/3 of the value of a 1-meter wide strip along the boundary line has been suggested as an alternative.
The author of the source material questions the rationality of basing the so'gaku on the value of the land expected to be damaged. Instead, the plaintiff's interest is in preventing the damage itself. The so'gaku should be determined by court discretion based on this specific preventative interest.

A. Installing Privacy Screens (目隠し設置請求 - Mekushi Setchi Seikyū)

Civil Code Article 235 mandates that if a person installs a window or veranda (including balconies) within one meter of a boundary line that directly overlooks a neighbor's residential premises, they must affix a privacy screen.
The so'gaku for a lawsuit to compel the installation of such a screen has seen several conflicting views:

  1. Deemed ¥1.6 Million: The interest is seen as psychological or personal (avoiding the discomfort of being observed), making monetary valuation extremely difficult, thus defaulting to the standard deemed value for non-property or hard-to-value claims.
  2. Cost of Installing the Screen: Since the obligation is to install a screen, an alternative performance, the cost of doing so is seen as the plaintiff's benefit. (The source text notes that a survey indicated over half of courts supported this view).
  3. Analogy to Possessory Claims: So'gaku Notification 7(2) is applied by analogy, taking 1/3 of the value of the portion of the plaintiff's own building that is being overlooked.
  4. Lower of Installation Cost or Fractional Building Value: The lower of the values derived from View 2 or View 3.

The author of the source material critiques the analogies to non-property or possessory claims, arguing that the dispute is fundamentally about balancing the interests of neighbors. The author finds the most rational basis for so'gaku to be the actual cost of installing the required screen, determined by court discretion. The argument that requiring cost estimates burdens the plaintiff is dismissed as such an estimate is a normal and expected part of pursuing this type of claim.

General Theme: Judicial Discretion and Plaintiff's Actual Benefit

A consistent theme emerging from the analysis of these various neighboring rights disputes is a critique of rote analogies to general property or possessory claim valuation rules (and the fixed fractional valuations often found in So'gaku Notifications). There is a strong preference articulated in the source material for the courts to exercise reasonable discretion in determining the so'gaku. This discretion should be guided by the plaintiff's actual, specific benefit derived from the success of the particular claim in question. This might be the cost of an installation, the quantifiable value of nuisance removal, the economic impact of preventing specific harm, or the increase in the utility or value of the plaintiff's property.

Conclusion

Disputes concerning "neighboring rights" (sōrin kankei) in Japan are diverse, each with its own unique set of interests at stake. Consequently, calculating the "value of suit" for court fee purposes is rarely a one-size-fits-all exercise. While common valuation analogies to easements or possessory claims exist in practice, a compelling analytical perspective, as highlighted in the source material, pushes for a more tailored approach. This often involves the court assessing the plaintiff's concrete benefit in the specific context of the dispute – be it the cost of installing a necessary facility, the value derived from stopping an interference, or the prevention of specific harm to their property or its enjoyment. For litigants, this means that while general guidelines might offer initial estimates, the specific facts and the nature of the benefit sought will ultimately be key in the court's determination of the so'gaku.