The Japanese legal system is basically a civil law jurisdiction, and written laws (statutes) enacted by the Diet constitute the most fundamental sources of law. Additionally, the judgments (precedents) rendered by the Supreme Court can be considered a substantive source of law in that possess de facto binding authority over judicial interpretations and decisions. Accordingly, litigation primarily centers on the court’s interpretation and application of written laws, and decisions are rendered based on relevant past precedents.
While the principle of orality (oral proceedings) is legally prescribed for certain aspects of litigation, trials are primarily document-centric in practice, with the court often taking initiative in defining and structuring the issues in dispute. Regarding evidence gathering, although procedures such as the order to submit a document are available (as detailed in Section 5), there are no extensive discovery procedures found in common law jurisdictions. Given the restricted scope for compulsory disclosure, evidence gathering is principally conducted through the voluntary cooperation of the parties.
In Japan, civil cases are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Code”) and the Rules of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”), while criminal cases are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rules concerning evidence are also established within these respective codes of procedure. Furthermore, litigation involving family and status relationships is regulated by the Personal Status Litigation Act, and suits related to administrative matters, including administrative dispositions, are governed by the Administrative Case Litigation Act.
In Japan, judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as are established by law. The Supreme Court serves the court of last resort, and the establishment of extraordinary tribunals is prohibited under the Constitution (Article 76, Paragraphs 1 and 2). Nevertheless, courts specializing in specific fields of cases are institutionally established in a manner that does not violate this constitutional prohibition, such as those detailed below:
Family courts serve as the first instance for lawsuits concerning family relationships and personal status relationships.
Intellectual Property High Court, established as a branch of the Tokyo High Court, handles IP-related appeals concerning patent rights and other intellectual property (IP) rights cases falling under the jurisdiction of the Tokyo High Court. It also serves as the first instance for the rescission of trial decisions rendered by the Japan Patent Office (JPO).
Labor tribunal proceedings are designed to resolve individual labor disputes between individual workers and employers, such as those involving dismissal or unpaid wages. Decisions are made by a Labor Tribunal Committee, which is composed of one Labor Tribunal Judge (a professional judge) and two Labor Tribunal Members. Unlike ordinary court proceedings, these procedures are closed to the public and are generally required to be completed within a maximum of three hearings.
While not constituting special judicial procedures, certain courts have established divisions dedicated to specializing in specific areas of litigation. For example, the Tokyo District Court includes specialized divisions for intellectual property, administrative matters, labor disputes, traffic offenses, mediation and non-contentious/construction cases, commercial matters, bankruptcy, provisional remedies, and execution. It also features a medical concentration division specifically organized to centralize medical malpractice cases.
In Japan, the following multilateral treaties have currently been concluded.
- Convention of Civil Procedure
- Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters
- Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction
- Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
- United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation
The Supreme Court is established as the court of last resort, and under the Courts Act, lower courts described below have been established.
High courts are established in eight major metropolitan areas, including Tokyo and Osaka. Furthermore, the Intellectual Property High Court was established as a special branch of the Tokyo High Court. High Courts primarily handle appeals against judgments rendered by District Courts or Family Courts, but they may also take up final appeals, such as those concerning second-instance civil judgments of District Courts.
There are fifty District Courts established throughout the country (one in each prefecture, with four in Hokkaido). The District Courts function as the court of first instance in principle, authorized to hear all cases at the initial stage unless otherwise stipulated. The district courts are also responsible for hearing appeals filed against the determinations of the summary courts.
The family courts, just like the district courts, are located across 50 places nationwide. The family courts handle suits concerning family and status relations, and they also adjudicate juvenile crime cases. Specifically, the Tokyo Family Court and the Osaka Family Court are designated to adjudicate disputes over child return under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
The summary courts’ jurisdiction covers civil cases, including civil suits with claims not exceeding 1.4 million yen and civil mediation, as well as criminal proceedings for offenses punishable by a fine or lighter penalty and comparatively minor offenses such as theft. In both civil and criminal cases, special procedures for expedited resolution may be utilized in certain circumstances.
The following courts have been established to handle specific types of cases.
The jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property High Court, according to Article 2 of the Intellectual Property High Court Establishment Act, encompasses the following matters:
- Appeals arising from litigation involving intellectual property rights, such as patents, utility models, designs, trademarks, and copyrights.
- Suits for the annulment of decisions rendered by the Japan Patent Office (JPO).
- Litigation outside the scope of (i) and (ii) where determining the key issues necessitates specialized knowledge pertaining to intellectual property.
The jurisdiction of the family courts covers the hearing of the following matters (Article 31-3, paragraph 1 of the Courts Act):
- Conciliation and adjudication of disputes concerning divorce and the division of assets.
- Personal status actions, including divorce litigation and suits for the repudiation of paternity.
- The trial/hearing of juvenile delinquency cases.
Labor tribunal procedure is a process established to resolve individual labor disputes between an employee and an employer, such as those involving dismissal or non-payment of wages. Unlike litigation, the procedure is non-public, and hearings are, in principle, required to conclude within three sessions. A party dissatisfied with the Labor Tribunal's determination may file an objection, in which case the determination loses its effect and the case proceeds to formal litigation
There are fundamentally no formal requirements for the initiation of litigation. The primary exceptions where formal requirements are mandated include: (i) shareholder derivative actions, (ii) litigation related to domestic relations cases, and (iii) certain administrative suits.
- In principle, prior to instituting a shareholder derivative action, the shareholder is required to submit a demand to the company to bring a suit to enforce the liability of its directors or other officers (known as the Demand to Sue, Article 847, paragraph 1 of the Companies Act). Should the company fail to file the suit within 60 days from the date of the demand, the shareholder is then entitled to file the derivative action.
- Regarding litigation concerning domestic relations cases, the filing of an action must, as a rule, be preceded by the filing of a petition for family conciliation (known as the Principle of Conciliation First, Article 257, Paragraph 1 of the Act on the Procedures for Domestic Relations).
- In administrative cases, where a specific statute provides that an action for the revocation of a disposition cannot be filed until after an administrative determination (saiketsu) on an administrative review (shinsa seikyu) has been rendered, it is necessary to submit a petition for the administrative appeal before filing the suit (known as the Principle of Request for Administrative Review First, Article 8, paragraph 1, proviso of the Administrative Case Litigation Act). The number of cases requiring this administrative review first has decreased compared to the past.
No pre-action protocol or similar rule exists, and consequently, there are no legal sanctions for non-compliance.
When instituting an action in Japan, it is necessary to consider, for example, the following points:
Japan lacks a comprehensive system, such as Discovery procedures, that allows parties to broadly request the disclosure of evidence from the opposing party. Therefore, it is highly recommended that parties intending to file suit in Japan confirm, before the commencement of the suit, that they possess evidence capable of substantiating their claim.
In Japan, the recovery of attorneys' fees from the defeated party is generally allowed only in cases involving tort liability. Even in such instances, the recoverable amount is typically limited to 10% of the recognized damages and rarely covers the actual legal expenses incurred. Therefore, as litigation may result in a net financial loss, a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis must be conducted before the commencement of the suit to determine the economic feasibility.
In principle, Japan does not impose statutory limitations on the period for filing lawsuits.
Nonetheless, claims themselves are subject to the statute of limitations; therefore, the filing of a suit before the right is extinguished by prescription. A claim is extinguished by the statute of limitations if it is not exercised for a period of five years from the time the creditor knows that the right can be exercised, or ten years from the time the right can be exercised (Article 166, Paragraph 1 of the Code). Consequently, a suit must be filed before the completion of the statute of limitations. The filing of a suit grants the suspension of the completion of the statute of limitations (Article 147, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Code).
On the other hand, certain types of lawsuits are subject to exceptional, statutorily determined filing periods, and any suit filed after the expiration of this period will be dismissed. For example, an action for the nullification of a company merger or division must be filed within six months from the day on which the effect became operative (Article 828, Paragraph 1 of the Companies Act). Furthermore, an action seeking the cancellation of a shareholders' resolution must be filed within three months from the day of the shareholders' resolution (Article 831, Paragraph 1 of the Companies Act).
Jurisdiction is stipulated in the Code and other specific statutes, as outlined below.
First, the determination of whether a Japanese court has international jurisdiction is set forth in Articles 3-2 to 3-12 of the Code. For instance, the Japanese court has jurisdiction where the defendant's domicile is located in Japan (Article 3-2), where the place of performance for a contractual obligation is in Japan (Article 3-3, Item 1), or where the tort occurred in Japan for an action concerning a tort (Article 3-3, Item 8).
Next, the question of which court within Japan has territorial jurisdiction is determined by factors such as the defendant's domicile or the place of performance of the obligation in dispute (Articles 4 and 5). For example, in an action for damages based on a breach of contract against a corporation, jurisdiction lies with the court governing the defendant's principal office or place of business (Article 4, Paragraph 1 and 4), or the place of performance of the obligation (Article 5, Item 1).
Furthermore, where there is an agreement on jurisdiction (Article 11), the agreed-upon court also has jurisdiction. Moreover, even when jurisdiction is not originally recognized, it is acquired if the defendant argues on the merits of the case or makes a statement in the preparatory proceedings (Jurisdiction by Appearance, Article 12).
In Japan, there is no statute that explicitly governs class actions.
Nonetheless, two systems analogous to class actions can be identified:
The Code of Civil Procedure provides for the designated party system, which has been noted to serve a function similar to the American class action. Specifically, this system allows a large number of individuals with a common interest (the selectors) to designate one person from among them as the party to the suit (designated party) to prosecute the action on behalf of all members (Article 30, Paragraph 1). This designated party conducts the litigation on behalf of all selectors.
Furthermore, Japan has the Act on Special Provisions of the Civil Procedure for Collective Redress for Property Damage of Consumers (Act No. 96 of 2013), which has been appraised as the Japanese equivalent of a class action. This Act permits a specific qualified consumer organization, certified by the Prime Minister, to bring a two-stage action for the collective recovery of consumers' property damages: (i) whether the business operator is liable to the consumers, and (ii) if liable, to whom and how much the operator must pay.
In situations other than those mentioned above, the practical approach for filing a mass action in Japan involves the plaintiffs selecting common legal counsel to proceed with the litigation.
To file a suit, a complaint detailing the necessary particulars must be submitted (Article 134 of the Code). While submission has historically required a paper format, subsequent legal revisions scheduled to take effect by May 2026 will enable electronic filing via the internet for certain litigation procedures.
The complaint must specify the parties and their statutory agents, the object of the claim and a statement of the claims, and contain the factual circumstances that are the reason for action in a concrete manner, and contain material facts relevant to those circumstances and evidence for the respective grounds that require proof (Article 134, Paragraph 2 of the Code, and Article 53, Paragraph 1 of the Rules).
Furthermore, the initiation of legal proceedings requires the payment of court fees. The amount payable is calculated in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of the Act on Civil Litigation Costs, etc. Although the fee is primarily calculated based on the value of the suit (amount claimed), in cases where the value cannot be calculated, it is deemed to be 1.6 million yen.
If the complaint lacks the mandatory particulars or if the filing fee is not paid, the complaint will be dismissed (Article 137, Paragraph 2 of the Code).
In principle, procedural requirements are not mandated for all types of litigation.
However, certain categories of lawsuits require specific procedural prerequisites. For example, procedural requirements, such as the obligation for a shareholder to file a demand with the company to bring an action prior to instituting a shareholder derivative action, are stipulated (Article 847, Paragraph 1 and 3 of the Companies Act) (See Section 3.1).
Furthermore, a lawsuit that fails to satisfy the necessary prerequisites for action will be subject to dismissal. The following are examples of such prerequisites:
- Jurisdiction (Refer to the answer to Q4.2.)
- Capacity
- Party Capacity (Articles 28 and 29 et seq. of the Code): The capacity to sue or be sued in one's own name is required.
- Capacity to Conduct Suit (Articles 28 and 31 et seq. of the Code): The capacity to perform or receive procedural acts effectively, either personally or through a legal representative, is necessary.
- Standing (No explicit statutory provision): The qualification to prosecute the suit and seek a judgment on the merits regarding the specific right or legal relationship is required.
- Legal Interest in Suit (No explicit statutory provision): A legal interest in the suit is recognized when the determination of the existence or non-existence of the right or legal relationship is necessary.
- Prohibition Against the Filing of Duplicate Actions (Article 142 of the Code): The filing of a subsequent suit concerning the same claim that is already pending is prohibited.
As a system of provisional relief, the Code of Civil Preservation provides for a provisional disposition to provisionally establish a status. This measure orders necessary temporary action to avoid significant damage or imminent risk of danger currently being faced by the creditor concerning a disputed right (Article 23, Paragraph 2 of the Code of Civil Preservation Act).
Furthermore, regarding the realization of a right through compulsory execution after obtaining a final judgment, preservation measures also include provisional attachment, which prohibits the debtor from disposing of assets, and provisional disposition concerning the subject matter of the dispute, which maintains the status quo of the property.
In addition, a motion may be filed with the court to seek an order for execution concerning an interim measure of protection ordered by a tribunal in an arbitration proceeding (Article 47, Paragraph 1 of the Arbitration Act).
The court is obligated to issue an order recognizing execution concerning the interim measure of protection, unless statutory grounds for revocation are present (Arbitration Act, Article 47, Paragraph 7, various items). When a party obtains an order recognizing execution, they may carry out civil execution based on the interim measure of protection ordered by the arbitral tribunal (Arbitration Act, Article 48). Furthermore, if the opposing party violates the interim measure of protection, or there is a risk of such violation, the party may petition for an order for payment of a penalty (Arbitration Act, Article 49).
The provision of security for litigation costs is mandated when the plaintiff lacks a domicile, office, or place of business within Japan, upon motion by the defendant (Article 75, Paragraph 1 of the Code ).
Furthermore, in actions concerning the organization of a company, filed by shareholders or creditors, or in suits for enforcement of liability, filed by shareholders, the court may, upon motion by the defendant, order the plaintiff to furnish appropriate security (Article 836, Paragraph 1, and Article 847-4, Paragraph 2, et seq. of the Companies Act).
In addition, when the court issues a declaration of provisional execution with a judgment, it may order the provision of security as a condition for the provisional execution (Article 259, Paragraph 1 of the Code).
In cases where an appeal to the court of second instance or a final appeal is filed against a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution, the court may, upon motion, order the party filing the appeal to furnish security and thereby mandate the stay, continuation, or revocation of the compulsory execution (Article 403 of the Code).
While it is not always common practice for the court to order the provision of security as a condition for the declaration of provisional execution, security is frequently mandated when a stay of compulsory execution is ordered.
In Japan, there are no statutory provisions that establish procedures identical or analogous to Discovery or Disclosure as found in common law jurisdictions.
However, provisions exist for requesting the disclosure of evidence within the litigation procedure, such as the Order for Submission of Documents (Article 221 of the Code), the Commission for Transmission of Documents ( Article 226 of the Code), and the Commission for Investigation ( Article 186 of the Code) (refer to Section 5.2 for Commission for Transmission and Investigation).
A possessor of a document who is ordered to submit it must disclose the document. If the document possessor, being a party to the suit, fails to comply with the Order for Submission of Documents, the opposing party's assertion regarding the content of that document may be deemed true (Article 224 of the Code).
While a broad range of documents is subject to disclosure, some types of documents are excluded from the scope of disclosure (Article 220, Paragraph 1, Item 4 of the Code):
Furthermore, due to legislative amendments, the Order for Submission of Electromagnetic Records will be newly established to include electromagnetic records as subjects of the Order for Submission of Documents.
Additionally, when circumstances exist that would make the use of evidence difficult unless it is examined beforehand, a party may file for preservation of evidence (Article 234 of the Code). The preservation of evidence can be made prior to the filing of a suit.
The Order for Submission of Documents, the Commission for Transmission of Documents, and the Commission for Investigation can all be directed toward third parties.
The Commission for Transmission of Documents (Article 226 of the Code) is a process whereby the court, upon a party's motion and finding a necessity, requests the possessor of a document to send that document. While the recipient of the commission is expected to cooperate in the transmission of the document, there are no sanctions for non-compliance.
The Order for Submission of Documents, conversely, requires the court to hold a hearing with the third party before issuing the order (Article 223, Paragraph 2 of the Code). If a third party who has received the Order for Submission of Documents fails to disclose the document, a non-penal fine of up to 200,000 yen may be imposed as a sanction (Article 225 of the Code). In practice, the Commission for Transmission of Documents, rather than the Order for Submission of Documents, is often utilized first when the possessor is expected to disclose the document voluntarily.
The Commission for Investigation (Article 186 of the Code) is a measure whereby the court commissions government agencies or other organizations to conduct a necessary investigation and report objective findings based on the information they possess. For example, this includes asking a bank to report on the details of a transaction with a certain individual. Although the commissioned organization is expected to cooperate with the investigation, there are no sanctions for non-compliance.
In principle, there are no provisions in Japan explicitly governing a privilege identical or analogous to the attorney-client privilege found in common law jurisdictions, which would necessitate the underlying procedures of Discovery or Disclosure.
As the procedures identical or analogous to Discovery or Disclosure in common law jurisdictions do not exist in Japan (as stated in Section 5.1), both parties are generally not required to produce evidence that is unfavourable to them, thus making the scenarios where a privilege could become an issue extremely limited.
In this context, Japanese attorneys are subject to a duty of confidentiality, obligating them not to disclose or utilize secrets learned in the course of their professional duties concerning their clients, except for justifiable reasons (Attorneys Act, Article 23; Basic Rules of Attorney Ethics, Article 23). Furthermore, under the Code, attorneys are granted the right to refuse testimony regarding facts learned in the course of their professional duties that ought to be kept confidential (Article 197, Paragraph 1, Item 2), and are similarly exempt from the obligation to disclose such documents (Article 220, Item 4, Sub-item C).
Additionally, in the context of on-site inspections conducted by the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) concerning suspected conduct eligible for leniency under the Antimonopoly Act, there is a special screening procedure. This procedure allows documents exchanged between the targeted business operator and their attorney to be returned to the operator without being subjected to review, provided certain conditions are met.
As stated in Section 5.1, the absence of procedures identical or analogous to Discovery or Disclosure in common law jurisdictions means that the advancement of technology does not directly impact the evidence disclosure procedure in Japan.
In practice, however, the influence of technological advancement on evidence collection is observed in the increasing utilization of digital forensics for gathering information recorded on PCs, smartphones, and other devices.
Specifically, in cases where the client is a corporation and the opposing party is one of its employees, the employee may unilaterally delete information recorded on their devices, believing it to be unfavorable. In such instances, digital forensics is often used to recover the deleted information.
Furthermore, digital forensics is occasionally employed to investigate the opposing party's PC or other devices in the context of preservation of evidence (See Section 5.1). However, since compliance with the preservation of evidence request is voluntary, the success rate of obtaining cooperation is not always high.
Should a party receive an Order for Submission of Documents (or an Order for Submission of Electromagnetic Records), the court may deem the opposing party's assertions regarding the content of the document or record to be true if the party fails to comply with the order, or if the party destroys the document subject to the obligation or renders it unusable for the purpose of impeding the opposing party’s use (Article 224, Paragraph 1 and 2 of the Code). Therefore, parties must be cognizant of the risk that the opposing party's claims may be deemed true when they are under an obligation to submit documents.
The Code specifies five categories of evidence methods subject to judicial examination: testimony from witnesses, examination of the parties themselves, expert opinion, documentary evidence, and inspection of objects. Furthermore, electromagnetic records will be formally incorporated as an additional category under the revised Code, which is scheduled for enforcement by May 2026. In the Code, the court is permitted to form its conviction concerning the findings of fact based on a free evaluation of all materials adduced in the proceedings (Article 247 of the Code). Consequently, there are, in principle, no restrictions on the types of evidence that may be subject to examination. Nevertheless, certain exceptions exist; for instance, when prima facie showings are required, the evidence must be capable of being examined immediately (Article 188 of the Code). Should the parties agree that evidence other than that specified in their contract is disqualified as a method of proof, the opposing party's objection to the evidence submitted in violation of this agreement will result in the rejection of that evidence submission. Additionally, there is ongoing debate regarding the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence, which is not immediately subject to exclusion. However, judicial precedents indicate that the evidence must be rejected if its adoption contravenes the principle of good faith in litigation after comprehensively considering circumstances such as the method and manner of its collection.
The regulations governing expert evidence differ depending on whether the expert is commissioned by the court or by one of the parties. Expert evidence commissioned by the court is regulated by the provisions concerning expert testimony (kantei) (Article 212 et seq. of the Code). This is a method of evidence examination whereby a third party possessing specialized knowledge and experience is required to report a judgment derived from the application of that expertise. While expert testimony is conducted upon the motion of a party, it is the court that determines whether to adopt the testimony, specifies the matters for expert opinion, and designates the expert (Articles 180 and 213, of the Code). Although the substance and reliability of the specialized knowledge presented by the expert are rigorously scrutinized, the designation of an appropriate expert is often not straightforward, and the process frequently requires a considerable amount of time before the expert opinion is submitted.
Expert evidence commissioned by a party may take the form of either submitting a private expert report as documentary evidence, or examining the expert as a witness through a witness examination (Article 190 et seq. of the Code). Utilizing private expert reports and witness examinations is useful as it allows the party to clarify the specialized basis of their assertions. However, it should be noted that the evidentiary value of such evidence may generally be diminished due to concerns regarding its objectivity and neutrality, as it is evidence favorable to the commissioning party.
While the Code contains no explicit provision for the exclusion of oral evidence like the parol evidence rule, documentary evidence is considered to hold preeminence over other forms of proof in Japanese judicial practice. For instance, if a contract is submitted as evidence and its formation is undisputed, the facts will be found as stated therein, unless there are special circumstances precluding such a finding. It is therefore crucial to prioritize the preparation of documents that can be submitted as evidence for the facts at issue. Furthermore, because judges commence forming their conviction at the initial stage of the proceedings, important objective documents are required to be submitted as early as possible. Evidence not submitted in a timely manner may be dismissed as a belated offensive or defensive measure.
Although a copy of a document must be submitted when offering it as evidence, the examination of the document is, in principle, conducted by reading the original. While the examination of the original can be substituted by reviewing the copy if the opposing party raises no objection, the necessity of having the original available must be borne in mind during preparation.
On the other hand, the examination of witnesses and parties is conducted collectively after the issues have been clearly framed, rather than being performed piecemeal. It is noteworthy that the motion for examination may be rejected if the court determines that the necessity of the testimony is not sufficiently established.
In civil litigation, the court is vested with the authority to control litigation proceedings to ensure that the trial is swift, fair, and thorough. This authority covers the entire scope of the proceedings and includes, but is not limited to, the following powers:
Designation and change of court dates (Article 93 of the Code)
Restriction, separation or consolidation of oral arguments (Article 152 of the Code)
Dismissal of allegations or evidence presented after its time without prejudice (Article 157 of the Code: With regard to allegations or evidence that a party has presented after the time for doing so, whether intentionally or through gross negligence, if the court finds that such allegations or evidence will delay the conclusion of litigation, it may rule to dismiss them without prejudice, upon petition or sua sponte.)
Presiding Judge's Authority to Control Litigation Proceedings (Article 148 of the Code)
Authority to Ask for an Explanation (Article 149 of the Code: The presiding judge, on a date for oral arguments or on any other date, may ask questions of a party or call for a party to give proof with regard to a factual or legal matter, in order to clarify a matter that is related to the litigation.)
Order for Clarification (Article 151 of the Code: e.g. ordering one of the parties themselves or the statutory agent thereof to appear on a date for oral arguments)
In civil litigation, oral arguments, examination of evidence, and the pronouncement of judgments are, in principle, conducted in open court due to a constitutional mandate (Article 82, paragraph 1 of the Constitution), which establishes the Principle of Publicity. On the other hand, procedures for clarifying issues and arranging evidence are not subject to the constitutional requirement of publicity and are consequently conducted as closed proceedings under the Code. All hearing dates other than those for the examination of witnesses and the pronouncement of judgment are conducted as non-public proceedings for the purpose of organizing the issues and evidence.
Furthermore, as an exception to the Principle of Publicity, the court may conduct proceedings in closed session if the judges unanimously determine that holding an open trial would be liable to injure public order or morals (Article 82, Paragraph 2 of Constitution). However, in the context of ordinary civil litigation, it is rarely contemplated that the public disclosure of a case would prejudice public order or morals.
Respecting the spirit of the constitutional requirement for publicity, the inspection of litigation records by third parties is generally recognized (Article 91, Paragraph 1 of the Code). However, when a party files a motion to restrict inspection or copying, citing the infringement of a significant secret concerning private life or trade secrets, and the court grants the motion, inspection by third parties is consequently restricted (Article 92 of the Code).
Where a conflict of laws arises between multiple jurisdictions, Japanese law provides the rules for determining the governing law in the Act on General Rules for Application of Laws (hereinafter referred to as the “Act"). The applicable national law is determined in accordance with this Act. Regarding the formation and validity of juridical acts, such as contractual disputes, Article 7 of the Act stipulates: "The formation and validity of a juridical act shall be governed by the law of the place chosen by the parties at the time of the juridical act." Consequently, where a contract contains a choice-of-law clause, that law shall apply.
Furthermore, Articles 4 to 37 of the Act prescribe the criteria for determining the governing law for each legal relationship. For instance, torts are governed in principle by the law of the place where the result of the injurious act occurred (Article 17 of the Act); real rights (property rights) concerning movables and immovables are primarily governed by the law of the location of the property (the Act, Article 13, Paragraph 1); and inheritance is governed by the national law of the decedent (Article 36 of the Act).
Third-party participation in litigation takes two forms: Supporting Intervention and Intervention as a Party. Supporting Intervention is characterized by a third party, who has a legal interest in the outcome of the lawsuit, joining the action as a quasi-party in support of one of the original parties (Article 42 of the Code). The intervening party (intervener) is authorized to perform all procedural acts in their own name, such as filing offensive and defensive measures, raising objections, lodging appeals, and bringing an action for retrial, with the effect of these acts accruing to the supported party (Article 45, Paragraph 1 of the Code). However, the intervener is subject to certain limitations; notably, any procedural act that conflicts with the acts of the supported party is invalid, as the intervener does not hold the status of an independent party (Article 45, Paragraph 2 of the Code). The effect of the judgment generally extends to the intervener as well (Article 46 of the Code). Intervention as a Party includes Intervention as an Independent Party (Article 47 of the Code), where the third party intervenes in a position independent of the original litigants, and Intervention as a Co-litigant (Article 38 of the Code), which occurs when a joint relationship exists with an original party. Both Intervention as an Independent Party and Intervention as a Co-litigant are characterized by the intervener acquiring the status of a party to the lawsuit.
The procedure commences with the plaintiff filing the suit by submitting a complaint to the court with the necessary documents. The complaint must include the required information. The complaint and accompanying documents are served upon the defendant after review.
The defendant, upon being served with the complaint, is required to prepare and file a written answer. If the defendant fails to file a written answer and is absent from the date for oral argument, the facts asserted by the plaintiff are deemed to be admitted (Article 159, Paragraph 3, and Article 159, Paragraph 1 of the Code).
Subsequently, a procedure for clarifying issues and arranging evidence (hereinafter "the Issue Clarification Procedure") is conducted. In the Issue Clarification Procedure, both parties file written submissions to assert their claims and adduce proof regarding the points of contention. It must be noted that if facts or evidence are submitted after the conclusion of the Issue Clarification Procedure, they run the risk of being dismissed as belated offensive or defensive measures (Article 157 of the Code).
After both parties request the necessary evidence and the Issue Clarification Procedure is completed, the examination of personal evidence is conducted on the date for oral argument.
Oral arguments are closed upon the completion of the necessary examination of evidence. At any stage, the court may recommend a settlement to both parties.
If the suit is not concluded on grounds other than a judgment, such as a settlement, the court will pronounce a judgment.
According to a report by the Supreme Court in July 2025, the average duration for the first instance of cases involving the examination of personal evidence was reported to be 23.6 months, with an average of 9.9 hearing dates conducted. It is not uncommon for complex cases to require several years before a first-instance judgment is rendered. Furthermore, since the three-instance court system is adopted, any appeal will necessitate a considerably longer duration.
Regarding the appellate stages, the average duration required for the High Court to hear an appeal is 6.4 months, and the average duration for final appeals heard by the Supreme Court is 3.8 months.
Civil judgments are classified into three types: Judgment for Performance, Declaratory Judgment, and Formative Judgment.
The Judgment for Performance orders the payment of money, commands a specific action (facere), or prohibits a specific inaction (non-facere). In Japanese civil litigation, it is not the case that monetary compensation is the sole principle for breach of contract, or that ordering specific performance (commanding an action or inaction) is permissible only in exceptional circumstances. Judgments ordering the cessation of certain conduct or those mandating the publication of an apology advertisement as a disposition for restoration of reputation due to defamation may also be granted. In terms of monetary compensation, punitive damages are not recognized; rather, compensation is limited to damages that ordinarily arise, in addition to those arising from foreseeable special circumstances (Article 416 of the Code).
The Declaratory Judgment establishes the existence or non-existence of a specific right or legal relationship. This judgment is granted when a current danger or uncertainty exists concerning the plaintiff's right or legal status, that uncertainty is attributable to the defendant, and the removal of the uncertainty through the judgment is necessary and appropriate.
The Formative Judgment declares a change, such as the creation, modification, or termination of a legal relationship by the court. An example includes a judgment revoking a resolution of a shareholders' meeting.
A party dissatisfied with the main text of a judgment may file an appeal against that judgment. An appeal against a first-instance judgment is termed appeals to the court of second instance (Article 281, Paragraph 1 of the Code), and an appeal against a second-instance judgment is termed final appeals (Article 311, Paragraph 1 of the Code).
There are no restrictions on the grounds for appeals to the court of second instance; a party may cite an error in the finding of fact, an error in the application of law, or a violation of procedural rules. However, since the object of the appeal is limited to the main text of the judgment (the disposition), if a party is dissatisfied with the reasoning but not the main text, the appeal will be dismissed as inadmissible.
On the other hand, the grounds for final appeals are limited to an error in the interpretation of the Constitution or any other constitutional violation (Article 312, Paragraph 1 of the Code), or a serious violation of procedural rules (Article 312, Paragraph 2 of the Code).
Notwithstanding the absence of these statutory grounds for final appeals, a case may be accepted for hearing by the Supreme Court at the motion of a party if the case is deemed to involve a conflict with judicial precedent or other important matters concerning the interpretation of laws and regulations (Article 318, Paragraph 1 of the Code).
The initiation of an appeal to the court of second instance is achieved by filing a written appeal with the court of first instance within two weeks, calculated from the day following the date on which the first-instance judgment was served (Articles 285 and 286, Paragraph 1 of the Code).
The grounds for the appeal are not required to be stated in the written appeal; typically, a brief stating the grounds for appeal is submitted subsequently. This appeal brief must be filed within 50 days from the filing of the appeal to the court of second instance (Article 182 of the Rules).
The first-instance judgment does not become final during the two-week appeal period (Article 116, Paragraph 1 of the Code), and the filing of an appeal precludes its finalization (Article 116, Paragraph 2 of the Code). However, the effect of a declaration of provisional execution is not affected by the appeal. Therefore, it is standard practice to simultaneously file a motion to stay compulsory execution (Article 403, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Code).
The points mentioned above are broadly similar for final appeals and petitions for acceptance of a final appeal (Articles 313–315, and Article 318, Paragraph 5 of the Code). Nevertheless, petitions for judicial decision for a stay of execution against a judgment bearing a declaration of provisional execution in a second-instance judgment are subject to stricter requirements (Article 403, Paragraph 1, Item 2 of the Code).
In the court of second instance, new allegations and evidence may be submitted in addition to the judicial materials from the first instance; however, if a party could have submitted the allegations or evidence in the first instance but failed to do so due to intent or gross negligence, the submission may be dismissed.
Furthermore, the court of second instance often closes the proceedings early and upholds the first-instance judgment or recommends a settlement, provided there are no issues with the first-instance judgment or proceedings, and no new allegations or evidence would overturn the findings of fact. Therefore, both the appellant and the appellee should be mindful of which allegations and evidence are effective, based on the premise of an early conclusion, regardless of whether they seek a judgment or a settlement.
It is important to note that final appeals and petitions for acceptance of final appeal do not permit allegations disputing findings of fact or the submission of new evidence, and can only address issues concerning constitutional interpretation or the interpretation of laws and regulations.
While oral argument is convened if the Supreme Court intends to overturn the original judgment in the final appeal, the appeal is often dismissed without convening oral argument if the court upholds the original judgment (Article 318, Paragraph 1, and Article 319 of the Code). Appellants should aim to accurately articulate allegations that pinpoint the problems with the original judgment, while the appellee should strive for precise counterarguments that support the maintenance of the original judgment.
If a debtor fails to perform their obligations despite a judgment being obtained in a domestic court (a final and binding judgment or a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution), the creditor must petition the court for compulsory execution to realize their right.
The typical example involves seizing the debtor's assets to realize a monetary claim. Although the property subject to seizure is wide-ranging, encompassing claims, real estate, and other assets, the creditor is fundamentally required to investigate and identify the specific property themselves.
Compulsory execution is a separate procedure from the principal lawsuit, and it is fundamentally adjudicated by a different judge. Therefore, in addition to the judgment itself, the submission of a writ of execution and a certificate of service of the judgment are required. The writ of execution is a certified clause stating that execution can be performed based on the judgment (Article 25 of the Civil Execution Act). The certificate of service is necessary because the service of the judgment text is a prerequisite for the commencement of execution (Article 29 of the Civil Execution Act).
The effect of a foreign judgment is only recognized, and compulsory execution can only be performed, if it satisfies specific requirements. A party seeking to execute based on a foreign judgment must file an action seeking a judgment authorizing execution (Execution Judgment) based on the foreign decree. In this litigation, the merits of the foreign judgment are not reviewed; rather, the court examines whether the requirements for the recognition of the foreign judgment's effect are met. If the requirements are found to be satisfied, an Execution Judgment is pronounced, and only when that judgment becomes final can compulsory execution based on the foreign judgment be initiated (Article 22, Item 6, and Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act).
The requirements for the recognition of a foreign judgment's effect are that the judgment must be final and binding (Article 118, the Introductory Clause of the Code), in addition to the following:
- The jurisdiction of the foreign court must be recognized by law or treaty (Article 118, Item 1).
- The defeated defendant must have received service of the summons or order necessary for the commencement of the suit, or, although not having received it, must have appeared in the proceedings (Article 118, Item 2).
- The content of the judgment and the litigation procedure must not contravene public order or good morals in Japan (Article 118, Item 3).
- There must be mutual assurance of recognition between Japan and the country that rendered the judgment (Article 118, Item 4).
The creditor (applicant) should consider the appropriate method of execution based on the right they seek to realize. For instance, in pursuing compulsory execution for a monetary claim, the creditor must identify the debtor's assets and then determine which assets to attach, taking into account the asset’s liquidity and the ease of the procedure. The basic approach to identifying the debtor's assets relies on self-investigation, such as checking property registrations at the debtor's domicile for real estate ownership, or utilizing the Bar Association Inquiry system (conducted by Japanese attorneys) to investigate the existence of the debtor's bank accounts. If such self-investigation proves difficult, utilizing the Procedure for Disclosure of Debtor’s Assets (Article 196 et seq. of the Civil Execution Act) may be considered.
The debtor (respondent) faces constraints on their property resulting from the compulsory execution by the creditor (e.g., if a bank deposit is attached, the debtor may be unable to withdraw funds or may lose the benefit of time concerning their relationship with the bank). It is crucial for the debtor to exhaust measures to avoid the compulsory execution application, such as filing a motion to stay execution, making payment to the creditor, or negotiating instalment payments with the creditor. However, caution is necessary, as acts involving concealing or destroying property subject to execution constitute the crime of Damaging Property with the Intent to Obstruct Compulsory Execution (Article 96-2 of the Penal Code).
Litigation in Japan typically necessitates both statutorily prescribed court costs and, except in cases of pro se litigation, attorneys' fees.
The statutorily prescribed court costs include the petition fees payable to the court upon the filing of the suit, and allowances and travel expenses for witnesses. The petition fee is determined by the value of the suit (the amount claimed); for example, the fee for filing an action seeking the payment of 10 million yen is 50,000 yen.
These court costs are, in principle, borne by the losing party (Article 61 of the Code). The ratio of the parties' liability for these costs is determined by a judicial decision on the burden of litigation costs, made ex officio by the court at the time of judgment (Article 67 of the Code). The specific monetary amount each party is liable for is finalized in the subsequent procedure for determining the amount of litigation costs (Article 71 of the Code), which occurs after the judgment becomes final.
In contrast, attorneys' fees do not fall under the category of court costs for which the losing party is liable; they are, in principle, borne by each party independently. (It is noteworthy that in tort cases, judgments are often rendered requiring the defendant to bear approximately 10% of the recognized damages.) Given that attorneys' fees are usually substantially higher than court costs, they constitute the core component of the expense associated with conducting litigation in Japan.
In Japanese litigation, the qualification for legal representation is generally restricted to attorneys qualified under Japanese law, save for exceptional cases. Under the retainer agreements with Japanese attorneys, the calculation of attorneys' fees is predominantly determined by either the initial fee and success fee system or the time-based fee system.
The initial fee and success fee system is a contractual arrangement where the attorneys' fees are composed of an initial fee, which is paid upon the retainer, and a success fee, which is paid according to the degree of success achieved in the case. The initial fee is paid to the attorney upon instruction and is generally non-refundable, even if the case result is unfavorable to the client. The success fee is determined by the monetary amount of the economic benefit gained by the client, for instance, through a full or partial favorable judgment or an advantageous settlement, and is analogous to a contingency fee system.
While there are no restrictions on determining attorneys' fees solely as a success fee, this approach is not widely common.
In Japan, there is no explicit statute or guideline that prohibits Third-Party Funding (TPF); however, conversely, there are no statutes or guidelines that explicitly permit TPF either.
Depending on its specific form, TPF in Japan may potentially violate provisions of the Attorneys Act, the Trust Act, and the Basic Rules of Attorney Ethics.
For example, Article 72 of the Attorneys Act prohibits non-attorneys from handling legal affairs for the purpose of obtaining compensation. In cases where a TPF provider engages in decision-making related to the dispute, such as determining litigation strategy or settlement policy, the provider’s conduct could, depending on the specific facts, be assessed as falling under the handling of legal affairs and thus be deemed a violation of Article 72 of the Attorneys Act.
While instances of TPF having been conducted in Japan exist, there is a lack of clear rules and insufficient accumulation of judicial precedents, leaving the future outlook pending.
One strategy for reducing the burden of litigation costs is to decrease the amount claimed. Japanese law permits claiming only a portion of the total monetary debt, and this action consequently reduces the amount of court fees required. While this approach does not reduce the debt amount itself, a party with insufficient financial resources may, upon application to the court, be granted a judicial decision to postpone the payment of litigation costs (known as the Legal Aid, Article 82-83 of the Code).
Furthermore, the burden of procedural costs can be mitigated by utilizing the following procedures:
Demand for Payment (Article 382 of the Code of Civil Procedure): This procedure involves the court sending a letter of demand to the debtor for a claim involving a fixed quantity of money, other fungible goods, or securities. The fee required for this petition is only half the cost of filing a formal lawsuit.
Civil Conciliation: This is a procedure that seeks to resolve civil disputes through negotiation at the court. The fee required for this petition is less than half the cost of filing a formal lawsuit. Even if conciliation fails, the conciliation fee can be repurposed toward the cost of filing a subsequent lawsuit, provided the suit is filed within two weeks of receiving the notice of failure.
In Japan, the informatization of civil litigation procedure has advanced in recent years. Currently, procedures for oral arguments and issue clarification have been introduced using web-conferencing, notably leveraging Microsoft Teams, which allows parties to attend hearings online without the necessity of appearing in court.
Furthermore, regarding the submission of documents and documentary evidence, when the attorneys for both parties consent, systems like "mints" allow for the online submission of documents such as preparatory documents, evidence lists, copies of documentary evidence, and various motions that do not require the payment of a fee (e.g., motions for transfer or motions for document production orders).
However, as of December 2025, the informatization remains limited; for instance, the filing or withdrawal of a suit must be conducted in writing, and the inspection of court records still requires visiting the court, meaning full implementation has not yet been achieved.
Nevertheless, the revision of the Code mandates that, from May 2026 onward, the informatization of procedures will advance further than the current state, enabling applications and service of process to be conducted online in principle, and allowing for the online inspection of litigation records.
The following points warrant attention when a foreign party is involved in litigation in Japan:
- Jurisdiction (Waiver Risk): First, the question of jurisdiction must be confirmed at the outset of the procedure, and any objection to jurisdiction must be raised early in the litigation. Caution is necessary because if a defendant argues on the merits of the case or makes a statement in the preparatory proceedings without submitting a defense that the Japanese court lacks jurisdiction, the Japanese court will acquire jurisdiction (Article 3-8 of the Code).
- Evidence Disclosure (Absence of Discovery): Since Japan lacks a system like Discovery that allows parties to broadly request the disclosure of evidence from the opposing party, one cannot heavily rely on evidence disclosure from the adversary. It is therefore essential to consider whether the evidence currently available is sufficient to prevail in the suit.
- Cost Recovery (Attorneys' Fees): In Japan, the recovery of attorneys' fees is generally limited to cases involving tort liability, and even then, the recoverable amount is low (typically 10% of the recognized damages). It is difficult to claim the full amount of costs expended on the litigation from the opposing party, meaning there is a risk that the litigation may not be financially worthwhile.
The following Associates from our law firm were involved in the preparation of these answers:
