Multiple Claims in a Single Japanese Lawsuit: How Does Claim Joinder Affect Court Fee Calculations?

In the course of commercial disputes or other legal conflicts, a plaintiff may have several distinct claims against the same defendant. Japanese civil procedure, like many legal systems, allows for the "objective joinder of claims" (訴えの客観的併合 - uttae no kyakkan-teki heigō). This procedural mechanism permits a plaintiff to consolidate multiple causes of action against a single defendant into one lawsuit, promoting judicial economy and efficiency. However, when multiple claims are brought together, a key question arises: how is the "value of suit" (訴額 - so'gaku) calculated for the purpose of determining court fees and, in some instances, court jurisdiction?

The Legal Basis and Utility of Claim Joinder in Japan

The Japanese Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) generally permits the joinder of multiple claims by a single plaintiff against a single defendant in one action, provided certain conditions are met (CCP Article 136). These conditions typically include that the claims can be adjudicated through the same type of court procedure and that the court has jurisdiction over all joined claims. Notably, under CCP Article 7, if a court has jurisdiction over one of the joined claims, it may also be able to exercise jurisdiction over other joined claims that might not independently fall within its purview, further enhancing procedural efficiency.

The primary utility of claim joinder is the efficient resolution of multiple related or unrelated disputes between the same parties in a single proceeding, thereby saving time and resources for both the litigants and the court system.

Types of Objective Joinder of Claims

Objective joinder can take several forms, each with different implications for how the court will handle the claims:

1. Simple Joinder (単純併合 - tanjun heigō): This is the most straightforward form, where the plaintiff asserts multiple claims and seeks judgment on all of them concurrently and on an equal footing. For example, a plaintiff might sue for an unpaid loan (Claim A) and, in the same lawsuit, for damages arising from a separate breach of contract (Claim B).
2. Preparatory/Alternative Joinder (予備的併合 - yobiteki heigō): Here, the plaintiff presents a primary claim and one or more secondary (preparatory or alternative) claims. The plaintiff requests judgment on the secondary claim(s) only if the primary claim is dismissed.
   • True Preparatory Joinder (真正の予備的併合 - shinsē no yobiteki heigō): The secondary claim is explicitly conditioned on the failure of the primary claim. For instance, a claim for specific performance of a contract, with a preparatory claim for damages if specific performance is denied. Prevailing academic views suggest that for this type of joinder to be valid, the primary and secondary claims should be logically inconsistent (i.e., both cannot succeed simultaneously). However, some scholars argue this limitation is not strictly necessary if the conditional structure is clear.
   • "Improper" Preparatory Joinder (いわゆる不真正予備的併合 - iwayuru fushinsē yobiteki heigō): This less common variant might involve a secondary claim conditioned on the success of the primary claim. The appropriateness and handling of such structures can be more complex.
3. Elective/Alternative Joinder (選択的併合 - sentakuteki heigō): In this scenario, the plaintiff presents two or more claims, any one of which would satisfy their underlying interest, and essentially asks the court to grant one of them, perhaps leaving the choice to the court or framing it such that success on one negates the need for the others. This form of joinder is viewed critically by some Japanese legal scholars due to potential issues with the specificity of the plaintiff's prayer for relief, unless it relates to an alternative obligation where the debtor inherently has the right to choose the mode of performance.

The General Rule for "So'gaku" in Joined Claims: Aggregation

When multiple claims are joined in a single lawsuit, the starting point for calculating the value of suit (so'gaku) is the principle of aggregation (訴額合算の原則 - so'gaku gassan no gensoku), as stipulated in Article 9(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This means that the individual so'gaku values of each distinct claim are added together to arrive at a total so'gaku for the entire lawsuit. This aggregated so'gaku is then used to:

• Determine subject-matter jurisdiction (i.e., whether the case falls within the purview of a Summary Court or a District Court).
• Calculate the applicable court filing fees based on the tiered fee schedule.

Example of Aggregation:
If a plaintiff joins:

• Claim A: A monetary claim for ¥1,000,000 (so'gaku = ¥1,000,000).
• Claim B: A claim for the return of specific property valued at ¥800,000 (so'gaku = ¥800,000, potentially subject to specific valuation rules for return of property claims, e.g., 50% of value under some guidelines).
  Assuming Claim B's so'gaku is ¥800,000 for simplicity here, the total aggregated so'gaku for the lawsuit would be ¥1,000,000 + ¥800,000 = ¥1,800,000.

This aggregation can influence which court hears the case. For instance, if individual claims are below the District Court's monetary threshold (currently ¥1,400,000), their aggregation might push the total so'gaku above this threshold, vesting jurisdiction in the District Court. Similarly, the total aggregated so'gaku will determine the fee bracket in the progressive court fee system.

The Crucial Exception: Economic Unity or Common Interest

The principle of aggregation is not absolute. The proviso to CCP Article 9(1) carves out a significant exception: if the "interest asserted in the suit is common to each claim" (その訴えで主張する利益が各請求につき共通である場合 - sono uttae de shuchō suru rieki ga kaku seikyū ni tsuki kyōtsū de aru baai), then aggregation is prohibited. In such cases of "economic unity" (経済的一体性 - keizai-teki ittaisei), the so'gaku is not the sum of the individual claim values. Instead, it is determined by the highest value among the joined claims that share that common economic interest.

Rationale for the Exception:
This exception is designed to prevent an unfair inflation of court fees when multiple legal claims or prayers for relief are, in substance, directed towards achieving a single, indivisible economic goal or protecting a single overarching interest for the plaintiff. If granting one claim effectively satisfies the core economic objective underlying other joined claims, it would be duplicative to calculate fees based on the sum of all of them.

Determining "Economic Unity":
Ascertaining whether claims possess the requisite economic unity is not always straightforward and can be a matter of interpretation. It's not about the claims being legally identical (they are often based on different causes of action) but about their functional interdependence in achieving the plaintiff's ultimate economic objective. The claims are so intertwined that the success of one renders the others (or their economic value) moot or substantially diminished from the plaintiff's perspective.

Illustrative Examples of Economic Unity (No Aggregation):

• Main Claim for Performance and a Related Intermediate Declaratory Claim: If a plaintiff sues for performance under a contract (e.g., payment) and, in the same action, seeks an intermediate declaratory judgment (中間確認の訴え - chūkan kakunin no uttae) confirming the validity of that same contract (a prejudicial legal relationship), these claims are generally considered economically unitary. The declaration supports the performance claim. The so'gaku would be the higher of the two (often the value of the performance claim, or the value of the entire contractual relationship if that is specifically valued for the declaration).
• Claim for Delivery of an Item and an Alternative Claim for its Monetary Value: In a preparatory joinder where a plaintiff primarily seeks the delivery of a specific item, and alternatively (if delivery is impossible) claims its monetary value, these are aimed at compensating for the same essential loss. The so'gaku would be based on the higher of the item's value or the claimed monetary compensation.
• Multiple Legal Grounds for the Same Single Damage: If a plaintiff seeks compensation for a single, indivisible item of damage (e.g., medical expenses from an injury) but pleads multiple legal grounds for recovery (e.g., tort and breach of contract), these claims are economically unitary with respect to that specific damage item. The so'gaku would be the amount of that damage, not multiplied by the number of legal grounds.
• Specific and Preparatory Claims in Property Disputes: For example, a primary claim for the transfer of real property registration, with a preparatory claim for damages if the transfer cannot be effected.

Joinder of Property and Non-Property Claims: Special Rules

The calculation of so'gaku becomes particularly nuanced when property-related claims are joined with non-property related claims. The Civil Procedure Costs Act provides specific rules that deviate from simple aggregation in certain instances:

1. Claims Arising from the Same Factual Basis (Civil Procedure Costs Act Art. 4(3)): If a non-property claim (which, for fee purposes, has a deemed so'gaku, typically ¥1,600,000) is joined with a property claim, and both claims "arise from the same facts" (その原因である事実から生ずる財産権上の請求 - sono gen'in de aru jijitsu kara shōzuru zaisankenjō no seikyū), the so'gaku for the entire lawsuit is the higher of the two individually determined values. There is no aggregation. A classic example is a divorce claim (non-property) joined with a claim for solatium (慰謝料 - isharyō, a property claim) arising from the marital conduct that forms the grounds for divorce. If the solatium claim is valued at ¥3,000,000, and the deemed value of the divorce claim is ¥1,600,000, the so'gaku for the combined suit would be ¥3,000,000.
2. Claims Not Arising from the Same Factual Basis: If the non-property claim and the property claim do not share a common factual origin, the general aggregation principle of CCP Article 9(1) applies. The so'gaku of the property claim is added to the deemed so'gaku (¥1,600,000) of the non-property claim to arrive at the total so'gaku for the lawsuit. For example, if a plaintiff seeks a divorce (deemed ¥1.6M) and also sues for repayment of an unrelated loan (e.g., ¥1M), the total so'gaku would be ¥2.6M.

Impact of Procedural Stage of Joinder

The principles of so'gaku calculation for joined claims generally apply whether the joinder is present from the initial filing of the complaint or occurs later through procedural mechanisms:

• Initial Joinder in the Complaint: The rules of aggregation or economic unity apply directly.
• Joinder via Claim Amendment (請求の変更 - seikyū no henkō) (CCP Art. 143): If a plaintiff amends their suit to add a new claim, the court fees are recalculated. The fee for the amended set of claims (now including the new one) is determined, and the fee already paid for the original claim(s) is deducted. The principles of aggregation or economic unity are applied to the new, combined set of claims to determine the revised total so'gaku.
• Joinder via Consolidation of Separate Lawsuits (弁論の併合 - benron no heigō): If two or more separately filed lawsuits between the same plaintiff and defendant are later consolidated by the court for joint hearing and judgment, the prevailing view in practice has been that their so'gaku values are not re-aggregated for fee purposes as if they were initially joined. Each suit retains its initial so'gaku for fee calculation. However, some legal scholars, including the author of the source material, critique this, arguing that if the cases are to be tried as one to achieve judicial economy, the fee benefits associated with initial joinder (particularly the economic unity exception) should logically extend to consolidated cases.

Conclusion: Navigating So'gaku for Joined Claims

The objective joinder of claims is a valuable tool for litigants and courts in Japan, allowing for the efficient handling of multiple disputes. For court fee purposes, the "value of suit" is generally determined by aggregating the values of the individual claims. However, this rule is significantly tempered by the principle of "economic unity" or "common interest," which prevents aggregation when claims, though legally distinct, serve a single overarching economic purpose for the plaintiff. In such instances, the highest value among the unitary claims prevails. Furthermore, specific rules govern the joinder of property and non-property claims, distinguishing based on whether they share a common factual origin. A clear understanding of these rules is essential for plaintiffs to accurately anticipate court fees, make strategic decisions about which claims to join, and effectively navigate the procedural landscape of Japanese civil litigation.