"Intermediate Declaratory Actions" (Zwischenfeststellungsklage) in Japanese Civil Procedure: What Are the Court Fee Implications?

In the course of complex civil litigation in Japan, the resolution of the main claim often depends on the determination of an underlying or "prejudicial" legal relationship (先決的法律関係 - senketsuteki hōritsu kankei). For instance, a claim for payment under a contract might hinge on the validity of the contract itself, or a claim for trespass might depend on who holds true ownership of the property. While courts routinely make findings on such prejudicial issues in their reasoning, these findings typically do not, by themselves, acquire the binding force of res judicata. To address this, Article 145 of Japan's Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) provides for a procedural tool known as an "intermediate declaratory action" (中間確認の訴え - chūkan kakunin no uttae), allowing parties to seek a formal, res judicata-bearing judgment on these critical preliminary issues within the framework of the ongoing main lawsuit. Understanding the court fee implications of employing this strategic device is crucial for litigants.

What is an Intermediate Declaratory Action under CCP Article 145?

An intermediate declaratory action is a specific type of lawsuit filed concerning a legal relationship upon whose existence or non-existence the judgment in the main, pending action directly depends. Its primary purpose is to elevate a finding on a prejudicial issue from a mere step in the court's reasoning to a formal part of the judgment's operative part (判決主文 - hanketsu shubun), thereby endowing it with res judicata effect. This prevents the same prejudicial issue from being re-litigated between the same parties in future disputes.

This action can be initiated by:

1. The Plaintiff: By amending their existing claim to include a prayer for an intermediate declaration regarding the prejudicial legal relationship (this is considered an additional joinder of a claim - 訴えの追加的併合).
2. The Defendant: By filing an "intermediate declaratory counterclaim" (中間確認反訴 - chūkan kakunin hanso) seeking a declaration on the prejudicial issue.

Such an action can be filed at any point up until the conclusion of oral arguments in the fact-finding instance (e.g., first instance or appeal court if it re-examines facts). The subject matter must be a legal relationship truly prejudicial to the main claim; it cannot be an entirely independent dispute.

"Value of Suit" (So'gaku) and Court Fee Implications

While an intermediate declaratory action is filed within an existing lawsuit, it still has implications for the "value of suit" (訴額 - so'gaku), which is the basis for calculating court fees.

Jurisdictional "So'gaku" (管轄訴額)

A separate calculation of jurisdictional so'gaku for the intermediate declaratory action itself is generally not necessary. This is because the action is, by its nature, ancillary to the main suit and is filed in the court that already has jurisdiction over that main action.

Court Fee "So'gaku" (手数料訴額 - Tesūryō So'gaku)

The calculation of court fees for the intermediate declaratory claim is where specific rules and interpretations come into play.

A. When an Intermediate Declaratory Action is Filed by the Plaintiff:

When a plaintiff amends their complaint to add an intermediate declaratory claim, this is procedurally treated as an additional joinder of a new claim. Therefore, additional court fees may be payable based on the so'gaku of this newly added declaratory claim. The fee calculation would generally follow the principles for an amendment of claim.

• Example (Ownership Dispute): Suppose the plaintiff's main action is for the return of a piece of property, based on their asserted ownership. If the plaintiff then adds an intermediate declaratory claim seeking a formal declaration of their ownership of that same property.
  • Common Practice: Under prevailing court practices, additional fees would typically be calculated based on the so'gaku of the newly added ownership confirmation claim. This would be determined as if it were a standalone declaratory action (often, the value of the right being declared, potentially with a 20% reduction from its full value, as discussed for positive declaratory actions generally).
  • Analytical View : If the main claim (e.g., for the return of property based on ownership, where ownership is genuinely disputed between the parties) already has a so'gaku that reflects the full economic value of the property, this so'gaku might inherently cover the economic interest involved in declaring ownership. If this so'gaku for the main claim is higher than the separately calculated so'gaku for the intermediate declaration of ownership (which, if following the author's general 20% reduction for positive declarations, might be 80% of the property value), then, according to this analysis, no additional court fee should be necessary for the intermediate declaratory action. This reasoning leans on the principle of economic unity or the idea that the highest value among economically linked claims should prevail for fee purposes, suggesting the declaration is effectively subsumed within the fees already paid for the more encompassing main claim.

B. When an Intermediate Declaratory Action is Filed by the Defendant (as a Counterclaim):

When a defendant files an intermediate declaratory counterclaim, the general principles for calculating court fees for counterclaims apply. The so'gaku of the intermediate declaratory counterclaim itself is first determined using the standard methods for valuing declaratory actions.

• The "Same Object" Proviso for Counterclaim Fees: A crucial rule, found in the Appended Table 1, Item 6, proviso of the Civil Procedure Costs Act, comes into play if the defendant's intermediate declaratory counterclaim is deemed to have the "same object" (目的を同じくする - mokuteki o onajiku suru) as the plaintiff's main claim. If this condition is met, a significant fee reduction applies: the fee payable for the counterclaim is its standalone calculated fee minus the fee already paid by the plaintiff for the main suit. This is often referred to as the "difference principle" (差額主義 - sagaku shugi).
• Example (Ownership Dispute, Defendant's Counterclaim): Plaintiff A sues Defendant B for the return of property, asserting A's ownership. Defendant B files an intermediate declaratory counterclaim seeking a formal declaration that B is the rightful owner of the property.
  • In this scenario, both the plaintiff's main claim (which relies on A's alleged ownership) and the defendant's counterclaim (which asserts B's ownership) are fundamentally concerned with the "same object"—the issue of who owns the disputed property.
  • Therefore, the "difference principle" for counterclaim fees applies, and Defendant B would only need to pay the difference, if any, between the fee calculated for their counterclaim and the fee already paid by Plaintiff A for the main suit.
  • Analytical View : If Plaintiff A's main claim (return of property based on disputed ownership) has a so'gaku calculated at the full property value, and Defendant B's declaratory counterclaim (being a positive declaration of B's ownership) is valued, for instance, at 80% of the property value (applying the general 20% reduction for positive declaratory actions), the fee for the main claim (being based on a higher so'gaku) would already be greater than the fee for the counterclaim. In such a case, under the "difference principle," no additional court fee would be payable by Defendant B for their intermediate declaratory counterclaim.

Strategic Importance and Utility

Intermediate declaratory actions, whether initiated by the plaintiff or the defendant, serve a vital strategic purpose:

• Securing Res Judicata: They allow parties to obtain a binding, conclusive ruling on critical underlying legal issues that might otherwise only be addressed in the reasoning of the main judgment. This prevents these same issues from being re-litigated in subsequent disputes between the same parties.
• Clarifying Complex Legal Situations: In multifaceted disputes, an intermediate declaration can definitively resolve a pivotal preliminary question, thereby streamlining the remainder of the litigation focused on the main claim.
• Facilitating Settlements: A binding determination on a key prejudicial issue can often pave the way for a more informed and efficient settlement of the overall dispute.

Conclusion

Intermediate declaratory actions under Article 145 of the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure offer a valuable mechanism for achieving legal certainty on prejudicial issues within an ongoing lawsuit. From a court fee perspective, these actions are treated distinctly depending on which party initiates them. If added by the plaintiff, they are generally viewed as an additional claim potentially requiring further fees, although analytical arguments suggest that if the main claim's value already encompasses the economic interest of the declared issue, additional fees might not be warranted. If raised as a counterclaim by the defendant, and critically, if it concerns the "same object" as the plaintiff's main claim (as is often the case with core prejudicial issues like ownership in a property dispute), a favorable "difference principle" applies, often resulting in minimal or no additional court fees for the defendant. Litigants considering this strategic procedural option should carefully assess these fee implications in consultation with their legal counsel.