Understanding "Partial Claims" in Japanese Litigation: How Do They Affect Court Fee Calculations?

In the realm of civil litigation, plaintiffs often face strategic decisions about how to frame their claims, especially when dealing with quantitatively divisible demands, such as a monetary debt or a series of related losses. One such strategy available under Japanese civil procedure is the filing of a "partial claim" (一部請求訴訟 - ichibu seikyū soshō), where a claimant sues for only a portion of what they believe is owed, potentially reserving the right to claim the remainder later. This approach has significant implications for initial litigation costs, particularly court fees, as well as for the subsequent legal standing of the un-sued portion of the claim.

What Constitutes a "Partial Claim" in Japan?

A partial claim arises when a plaintiff, possessing a single claim that is quantitatively divisible (e.g., a ¥10 million debt, a series of unpaid invoices totaling a certain amount), chooses to initiate a lawsuit for only a fraction of that total amount (e.g., suing for only ¥2 million of the ¥10 million debt).

Japanese legal practice and theory distinguish between a few types of partial claims:

1. Open/Express Partial Claim (公然の一部請求訴訟 - kōzen no ichibu seikyū soshō): This is where the plaintiff explicitly states in their complaint that they are suing for only a part of a larger claim and are reserving their right to sue for the remaining portion later. Alternatively, the circumstances of the case may clearly indicate that it is a partial claim. This is the most common and procedurally clearest form.
2. Hidden Partial Claim (隠れた一部請求 - kakureta ichibu seikyū): In this scenario, it is not apparent from the plaintiff's pleadings or the circumstances that the lawsuit represents only a fraction of a larger potential claim. The plaintiff sues for an amount that could ostensibly be the entirety of their claim, without mentioning any remainder.
3. Specific vs. Non-specific Partial Claims:
   • Specific Partial Claim (特定的一部請求訴訟 - tokuteiteki ichibu seikyū soshō): This involves claiming a distinct, identifiable segment of a larger legal relationship, often distinguishable by specific legal criteria such as the presence of security for one portion of a debt but not another, or different due dates for various installments.
   • Non-specific Partial Claim (非特定的一部請求訴訟 - hi-tokuteiteki ichibu seikyū soshō): This refers to suing for a mere quantitative portion of what is essentially a single, unified underlying claim, without distinguishing the claimed part by any particular characteristic other than its amount.

Partial claims are generally considered a permissible way to initiate litigation in Japan. Their utility often lies in managing litigation costs, testing the strength of a case with a smaller initial stake, or situations where the full extent of a divisible loss is not yet fully ascertained.

Calculating the "Value of Suit" (So'gaku) for Partial Claims

The most direct impact of filing a partial claim is on the calculation of the "value of suit" (訴額 - so'gaku), which, as discussed previously, is the basis for determining court filing fees in Japan.

The fundamental rule for partial claims is straightforward: the so'gaku is based on the monetary value of the portion of the claim for which the plaintiff is actually seeking judgment in the current lawsuit.

For example, if a creditor is owed a total of ¥10,000,000 but files an express partial claim for only ¥3,000,000, the so'gaku for that lawsuit will be ¥3,000,000. Consequently, the initial court filing fees will be calculated based on this lower amount, rather than the total underlying debt. This can make initiating legal proceedings more financially accessible, especially if the full claim would attract significantly higher fees.

The Crucial Issue: Res Judicata and Subsequent Claims for the Remainder

While the calculation of so'gaku for the initial partial claim is relatively simple, the more complex and strategically vital question concerns the effect of the judgment in that partial claim lawsuit on any subsequent attempt to sue for the remaining, previously un-sued portion. This revolves around the scope of res judicata (既判力 - kihanryoku), the legal principle that a final judgment on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the same claim, demand, or cause of action.

There are differing theoretical views in Japanese legal scholarship on the precise "object of litigation" (訴訟物 - soshōbutsu) in an open partial claim:

1. Prevailing View (Claimed Portion is the Object): The dominant position, largely supported by case law and many scholars, is that in an open/express partial claim, the object of litigation is limited to the specific portion of the claim that the plaintiff has chosen to sue upon. Therefore, the res judicata effect of the judgment (whether it's a full award, partial award, or dismissal of the claimed portion) also extends only to that sued-upon portion. This means that if a plaintiff expressly sues for ¥3 million out of a ¥10 million debt and either wins or loses on that ¥3 million, they are generally not barred by res judicata from subsequently filing a new lawsuit for the remaining ¥7 million. The subsequent lawsuit would, of course, be subject to its own merits and any defenses the defendant might raise, including the statute of limitations.
2. Alternative Academic View (Entire Claim is the Object - 一部請求否定説): Some legal theorists argue that even in an open partial claim, the true object of litigation is, in fact, the entire underlying claim (e.g., the entire ¥10 million debt). Under this "partial claim denial theory" (ichibu seikyū hitei setsu), the court's power to award a judgment is merely limited by the plaintiff's specific prayer for relief (i.e., the court cannot award more than the ¥3 million requested in our example due to the principle of ne ultra petita partium). If this theory were adopted, the res judicata effect of the first judgment would extend to the entire ¥10 million claim. This would mean a plaintiff who lost the initial partial claim could be barred from suing for the remainder. The PDF acknowledges this theory but notes that even under this view, for the practical purpose of calculating court fees, the amount actually requested by the plaintiff might still be considered the so'gaku.

Practical Implications of the Prevailing View: The prevailing view, limiting res judicata to the claimed portion in open partial claims, has significant practical implications:

• It allows plaintiffs to "test the waters" with a smaller part of their claim before committing to the costs and risks of litigating the entire amount.
• It provides a mechanism for managing upfront litigation costs by basing initial fees on a smaller so'gaku.
• It generally means that a subsequent suit for the remainder is not automatically barred by principles of claim preclusion or the prohibition of duplicative litigation (民事訴訟法第142条 - Minji Soshōhō dai 142 jō), as the "claim" in the second suit is different from that adjudicated in the first.

Strategic Uses and Considerations for Employing Partial Claims

Filing a partial claim can be a sound strategic decision in various circumstances:

• Cost Management: As highlighted, lower initial court fees due to a reduced so'gaku.
• Evidentiary Strategy: A plaintiff might sue for a well-documented portion of a claim first to establish liability or test the defendant's arguments before proceeding with more complex or harder-to-prove segments.
• Uncertainty of Full Claim Value: In some situations, while a divisible right to recovery exists, its total quantum might not be fully clear at the time of initial filing. A partial claim allows for initiating action on a known portion.
• Interruption of Statute of Limitations (時効の完成猶予・更新 - jikō no kansei yūyo / kōshin): A crucial aspect of Japanese law is the interruption (or, under revised terminology, renewal or postponement of completion) of the statute of limitations. Filing a lawsuit, even a partial one, for a monetary claim generally has the effect of interrupting the statute of limitations with respect to the claim being pursued. For an open partial claim, where the plaintiff clearly indicates their intention to claim a larger amount, the act of filing the partial claim is generally understood to interrupt the statute of limitations for the entire underlying divisible claim, not just the portion sued upon. This prevents the remainder of the claim from becoming time-barred while the initial part is being litigated. However, the plaintiff must clearly manifest their intent regarding the whole claim.

Potential Pitfalls and Limitations of Partial Claims

Despite their advantages, partial claims also come with potential drawbacks:

• Risk of Inconsistent Judgments: If subsequent lawsuits for the remainder are filed, particularly if they proceed before different judges or if circumstances change, there's a theoretical risk of differing outcomes or assessments, although judicial consistency is generally strived for.
• "Hidden Partial Claim" Complications: If a plaintiff sues for an amount without indicating it's only a part, and that amount could reasonably be construed as the entirety of what's owed (a "hidden partial claim"), a judgment (especially a dismissal on the merits) might be argued to have res judicata effect over the entire underlying claim, potentially barring a later suit for any unmentioned remainder. Clarity in pleading is therefore paramount if reserving rights for a further claim.
• Increased Overall Litigation Time and Expense: While initial costs might be lower, filing multiple lawsuits for segments of the same underlying debt will ultimately involve more procedural steps, potentially more court appearances, and could prolong the overall resolution, potentially increasing total costs in the long run.
• Defendant's Response: A defendant faced with a partial claim is not without options. They might, for instance, file a counterclaim seeking a declaration that they have no liability for the entire amount of the underlying debt from which the partial claim is drawn.

Partial Claims and the Role of Certified Judicial Scriveners (Nintei Shihō-Shoshi)

In Japan, "certified judicial scriveners" (認定司法書士 - nintei shihō-shoshi) are legal professionals who, upon receiving specific certification, are authorized to represent clients in Summary Court proceedings where the value of suit (so'gaku) does not exceed ¥1,400,000.

The possibility of filing partial claims can intersect with this jurisdictional limit. An ethical and professional conduct issue arises if a judicial scrivener advises a client whose total claim exceeds ¥1,400,000 to file a partial claim for an amount within this limit, primarily for the purpose of enabling the scrivener to handle the case. The legislative intent behind the scope of practice for judicial scriveners was not to encourage the artificial division of larger claims simply to fit them into their representational mandate. The authorities involved in drafting the relevant legislation suggested that, unless there are legitimate substantive reasons for pursuing only a partial claim, strategically reducing a claim below the ¥1.4 million threshold solely to allow a judicial scrivener to act as representative might be considered a breach of the professional duty to maintain dignity (司法書士法第2条 - Shihōshoshi-hō dai 2 jō). It was even posited that merely providing consultation on a debt known to exceed the limit, with a view to such a division, could be problematic.

Combining Partial Claims with Other Actions: So'gaku Implications

The calculation of so'gaku becomes more nuanced when a partial claim is combined with other types of legal actions in the same lawsuit:

• Partial Claim + Declaratory Action for the Entire Underlying Relationship: If a plaintiff files a partial monetary claim and, in the same suit, separately seeks a declaratory judgment confirming the existence or validity of the entire contractual or debt relationship from which the partial claim arises, the court fees are generally calculated by aggregating the so'gaku of the partial claim and the so'gaku of the (separate) declaratory action. This is because the declaratory relief sought extends beyond the specific monetary portion being claimed for payment.
• Partial Claim + Intermediate Declaratory Action for the Prejudicial Relationship: If, however, the plaintiff brings a partial claim and joins it with an intermediate declaratory action (中間確認の訴え - chūkan kakunin no uttae) concerning the existence of the entire prejudicial legal relationship (e.g., the validity of the entire contract from which the partial monetary claim stems), the situation is different. Here, the two claims are considered economically unitary. The primary goal is the resolution of the underlying relationship, which directly impacts the partial claim. In such cases, the so'gaku is not aggregated. Instead, the higher of the two values (the value of the partial claim or the value attributed to the intermediate declaratory action, which would typically relate to the entire relationship) is used as the so'gaku for fee purposes. (It has been suggested that the value of a declaratory action might be assessed at a discount, for instance, 20% less than a direct claim for performance, which could influence which claim is deemed to have the higher value. )

Conclusion

Partial claims offer a flexible and strategically useful tool within Japanese civil procedure, particularly for managing initial litigation costs by basing court fees on a reduced "value of suit." The prevailing legal understanding that limits the res judicata effect of a judgment in an open partial claim to the portion actually sued upon allows plaintiffs to pursue remedies in stages without necessarily forfeiting the right to claim remaining amounts later. However, litigants must be precise in their pleadings, especially when intending to reserve rights for future claims, and be mindful of the potential for increased overall duration and costs if multiple suits become necessary. For legal professionals, particularly certified judicial scriveners, ethical considerations regarding the division of claims to meet jurisdictional representation limits are also pertinent. Ultimately, the decision to file a partial claim requires a careful balancing of its cost benefits against its procedural and strategic implications.