Where Do We File Our Lawsuit in Japan? A Guide to Japanese Court Jurisdiction

Choosing the correct court in which to file a lawsuit is a fundamental and critical first step in any litigation. In Japan, the rules governing which court has the authority to hear a case are collectively known as "jurisdiction," or Saiban kankatsu (裁判管轄). Filing a lawsuit in a court that lacks jurisdiction can lead to significant delays, dismissal of the action (uttae kyakka 訴え却下), or transfer of the case (isō 移送) to the proper court. For businesses, especially those involved in cross-border transactions, understanding the intricacies of Japanese jurisdictional rules is essential for effective dispute resolution strategy.

I. Understanding Jurisdiction (Saiban kankatsu) in the Japanese Civil Justice System

A. What is Jurisdiction and Why Does It Matter?

Jurisdiction, in this context, refers to the legal power and authority of a particular court to hear and adjudicate a specific case. These rules are designed to ensure:

• Fairness to the Parties: Particularly to the defendant, by generally requiring them to be sued in a convenient or connected forum.
• Efficient Administration of Justice: By distributing caseloads appropriately among courts and ensuring cases are heard by courts with the relevant expertise or connection to the dispute.
• Legal Certainty and Predictability: By providing clear rules on where lawsuits can be initiated.

Failure to adhere to jurisdictional rules means the chosen court cannot legitimately exercise its judicial power over the case.

B. Consequences of Filing in the Wrong Court

If a lawsuit is filed in a Japanese court that lacks jurisdiction:

• Transfer (Isō 移送): If another Japanese court does have jurisdiction, the court where the action was improperly filed may, upon motion or ex officio, transfer the case to the competent court (Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 16).
• Dismissal (Uttae kyakka 訴え却下): If no Japanese court has jurisdiction (e.g., in some international cases), or if the lack of jurisdiction is absolute (e.g., violation of exclusive jurisdiction), the action will be dismissed without prejudice on procedural grounds.

II. Subject-Matter Jurisdiction (Jimotsu kankatsu 事物管轄): Which Level of Court?

Subject-matter jurisdiction dictates which type or level of court is competent to hear a case, primarily based on the monetary value of the claim or the nature of the dispute.

• Summary Courts (Kan'i saibansho 簡易裁判所): These courts handle civil cases where the value of the subject matter of the claim does not exceed JPY 1.4 million (Court Act, Art. 33, Para. 1, Item 1). They also handle certain specific types of disputes regardless of value. Procedures in Summary Courts are generally simpler and faster.
• District Courts (Chihō saibansho 地方裁判所): These are the courts of general jurisdiction for civil matters and serve as the court of first instance for claims exceeding JPY 1.4 million, as well as for cases not specifically assigned to other courts (e.g., most real estate disputes regardless of value).
• High Courts (Kōtō saibansho 高等裁判所) and the Supreme Court (Saikō saibansho 最高裁判所): These primarily function as appellate courts. However, the Intellectual Property High Court, a special branch of the Tokyo High Court, has exclusive original jurisdiction over certain types of IP-related administrative litigation appeals and some civil actions concerning patent rights if a specific technical scope determination is a key issue.

III. Territorial Jurisdiction / Venue (Tochi kankatsu 土地管轄): Which Geographic Location?

Territorial jurisdiction determines the appropriate geographical location or district where the lawsuit should be filed. The Japanese Code of Civil Procedure provides a set of rules for this, balancing the plaintiff's convenience with fairness to the defendant.

A. The Principle of "Actor Sequitur Forum Rei" (General Venue of the Defendant - 被告の普通裁判籍 Hikoku no futsū saibanseki)

The fundamental rule, often referred to by the Latin maxim actor sequitur forum rei (the plaintiff follows the forum of the defendant), is that a lawsuit is to be brought before the court having jurisdiction over the defendant's "general venue" (Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 4, Para. 1).

• For Individuals: This is generally their place of domicile (jūsho 住所) or, if unknown or in Japan, their place of residence (kyosho 居所).
• For Legal Entities (Corporations, etc.): This is their principal office or main place of business (shutaru jimusho matawa eigyōsho 主たる事務所又は営業所).

B. Special Venues (Tokubetsu saibanseki 特別裁判籍) Offering Plaintiff Choices

In addition to the defendant's general venue, Article 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure establishes several "special venues" where a lawsuit may also be filed, often providing the plaintiff with a choice. For business litigation, some of the most relevant special venues include:

1. Place of Performance of Obligation (Gimu rikō-chi 義務履行地) (Art. 5, Item 1):
   A lawsuit concerning a contractual obligation can be filed in the court governing the place where that obligation is to be performed. For monetary debt obligations, unless otherwise agreed, the default rule is that payment is to be made at the creditor's current domicile (jisan saimu no gensoku 持参債務の原則 – principle that debt is to be brought to the creditor). This often allows a creditor to sue in their own local court for payment.
2. Place of Payment for Bills and Notes (Tegata kogitte no shiharai-chi 手形・小切手の支払地) (Art. 5, Item 3):
   Actions relating to negotiable instruments can be brought at the place of payment.
3. Place of Tort (Fuhō kōi-chi 不法行為地) (Art. 5, Item 9):
   Actions for damages arising from a tort (e.g., negligence, intellectual property infringement, unfair competition) can be filed in the court governing the place where the wrongful act was committed or where its results occurred.
4. Venue for Actions Concerning Real Property (Fudōsan ni kansuru uttae no kankatsu 不動産に関する訴えの管轄) (Art. 5, Item 12):
   Lawsuits relating to rights in real property (e.g., ownership disputes, lease disputes over land or buildings) can be brought in the court governing the location of the property.
5. Venue for Actions Concerning Corporations and Other Associations (Art. 5, Item 5):
   An action against a legal entity relating to its business can be filed at the location of its business office (even if not the principal one) where the relevant business was conducted.

C. Plaintiff's Right to Choose
If multiple courts have territorial jurisdiction under these rules (e.g., both the defendant's general venue and a special venue apply), the plaintiff generally has the right to choose in which of these competent courts to file the action.

IV. Modifying Jurisdictional Rules by Agreement and Conduct

Parties can, to some extent, influence jurisdiction.

A. Jurisdiction by Agreement (Gōi kankatsu 合意管轄)
Article 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows parties to agree on jurisdiction for the court of first instance.

• Requirements: The agreement must be in writing (which includes electronic records under certain conditions), concern a specific legal relationship, and designate a specific court or courts.
• Exclusive vs. Non-Exclusive Agreements: The agreement can be "exclusive" (senzoku-teki gōi kankatsu 専属的合意管轄), meaning only the designated court(s) will have jurisdiction, or "non-exclusive" (hi-senzoku-teki gōi kankatsu 非専属的合意管轄), adding the agreed court(s) to other potentially competent courts. The wording of the clause is crucial. If exclusivity is intended, it should be clearly stated.
• International Jurisdiction Agreements: Article 3-7 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically addresses the validity of international jurisdiction agreements, which are generally respected if certain conditions regarding form and specificity are met, and provided they are not contrary to public policy or concern matters of exclusive Japanese jurisdiction.

B. Jurisdiction by Appearance (Ōso kankatsu 応訴管轄)
Under Article 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, if a plaintiff files a suit in a court that lacks territorial jurisdiction, that court can acquire jurisdiction if the defendant appears and presents arguments on the merits of the case (or makes statements in preliminary proceedings) without raising an objection as to the lack of jurisdiction before doing so. This means a defendant who wishes to challenge jurisdiction must do so at their first opportunity. This rule does not apply if the court lacks jurisdiction due to rules of exclusive jurisdiction.

V. Exclusive Jurisdiction (Senzoku kankatsu 専属管轄)

For certain types of lawsuits, Japanese law mandates that they must be filed in a specific court, to the exclusion of all others. This is known as "exclusive jurisdiction."

• Examples:
  • Certain types of corporate litigation (e.g., an action to nullify a company's incorporation must be filed with the district court governing the location of the company's head office - Companies Act, Art. 835, Para. 1).
  • Actions concerning the registration of real property rights often fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court governing the property's location.
  • Certain intellectual property matters, particularly appeals from Japan Patent Office decisions or specific high-stakes patent infringement cases, fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property High Court in Tokyo.
• No Deviation: Parties cannot alter exclusive jurisdiction rules by agreement, nor can jurisdiction by appearance cure a defect of exclusive jurisdiction.

VI. Navigating International Jurisdiction (Kokusai saiban kankatsu 国際裁判管轄)

When a dispute has international elements (e.g., a foreign plaintiff or defendant, a contract performed overseas, a tort occurring abroad but causing damage in Japan), the question of whether Japanese courts have jurisdiction is determined by specific provisions in the Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 3-2 to 3-12, introduced by an amendment in 2012).

• General Principles: These articles lay down rules based on various "connecting factors" that link the dispute or the parties to Japan. Key grounds for Japanese jurisdiction include:
  • The defendant (individual or corporation) having their domicile or principal office in Japan (Art. 3-2, Art. 3-3).
  • The place of performance of a contractual obligation being in Japan (Art. 3-3, Item 1).
  • The place where a tort was committed, or its results occurred, being in Japan (Art. 3-3, Item 8).
  • The location of assets in Japan, for certain property-related claims (Art. 3-3, Item 5).
  • Business conducted in Japan through an office or establishment, for claims related to that business (Art. 3-3, Item 7).
• Impact of International Jurisdiction Agreements (Art. 3-7): As mentioned, agreements designating Japanese courts (or foreign courts) are generally upheld if validly formed and not against Japanese public policy or exclusive jurisdiction rules.
• Special Circumstances and Discretionary Dismissal: In exceptional cases, even if technical grounds for jurisdiction exist, a Japanese court might dismiss a case if hearing it in Japan would be severely contrary to the principles of justice and equity between the parties and the proper and prompt administration of justice (this is a very limited concept, sometimes analogized to forum non conveniens but not a direct equivalent, often referred to as dismissal based on jōri 条理 – reason or natural justice).

Understanding these rules is paramount for foreign companies, as it determines their exposure to lawsuits in Japan and their ability to seek remedies through Japanese courts.

VII. Practical Steps and Strategic Considerations

• Pre-Filing Jurisdictional Analysis: Before filing any lawsuit, conduct a thorough analysis to identify all potentially competent courts. This is a critical due diligence step.
• Strategic Use of Special Venues: Where multiple venues are available, consider which one offers the most advantages in terms of convenience, local judicial expertise (if any), or other strategic factors.
• Drafting and Reviewing Jurisdiction Clauses: For businesses, particularly in international contracts, carefully drafted jurisdiction clauses that clearly designate a chosen forum (and ideally, specify whether it's exclusive) can prevent costly future disputes over where to litigate.
• Responding to a Lawsuit Filed in an Improper Venue: If sued in a Japanese court believed to lack jurisdiction, it is crucial to raise the jurisdictional objection promptly and correctly, typically before addressing the merits of the case, to avoid inadvertently creating jurisdiction by appearance.

Conclusion

Determining the correct court with jurisdiction is not a mere formality but a foundational requirement for any civil lawsuit in Japan. The rules governing subject-matter, territorial, agreed, appearance-based, exclusive, and international jurisdiction form a complex but logical framework designed to ensure fairness and efficiency. For businesses navigating disputes in Japan, especially those with international dimensions, a clear understanding of these Saiban kankatsu rules, potentially with the guidance of experienced legal counsel, is indispensable for laying the proper groundwork for successful litigation and avoiding procedural pitfalls that could derail a meritorious case from the outset.