Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2017

The International Comparative Legal Guide to:

A practical cross-border insight into litigation and dispute resolution work

10th Edition

Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2017

ICLG

C RDCommercial Dispute Resolution

ARNECKE SIBETH Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbBAxioma Estudio LegalBae, Kim & Lee LLCBär & Karrer Ltd.Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLPBROSETAClayton UtzCliffe Dekker Hofmeyr IncCovington & Burling LLPDrinker Biddle & Reath LLPGün + PartnersGürlich & Co.Hamdan AlShamsi Lawyers & Legal ConsultantsHolland & Knight LLPJackson Walker LLPKammeradvokaten, Law Firm Poul SchmithKentuadei Adefe, Legal Practitioners, Mediators & ArbitratorsKobre & KimKubas Kos Gałkowski

Lennox PatonLoyens & Loeff Luxembourg S.à.r.l.Makarim & Taira S.McCann FitzGeraldMiller & Chevalier CharteredNagashima Ohno & TsunematsuNorburg & Scherp Advokatbyrå ABOblin MelicharPolenak Law FirmPotter Anderson & Corroon LLPQuevedo & PonceRichman Greer, P.A.Rogério Alves & Associados – Sociedade de Advogados, R.L.Sam Okudzeto & AssociatesSkadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPSouto, Correa, Cesa, Lummertz & Amaral AdvogadosSysouev, Bondar, Khrapoutski SBH Law OfficeWaselius & WistZamfirescu Racoţi & Partners Attorneys at Law

Published by Global Legal Group, in association with CDR, with contributions from:

Further copies of this book and others in the series can be ordered from the publisher. Please call +44 20 7367 0720

DisclaimerThis publication is for general information purposes only. It does not purport to provide comprehensive full legal or other advice.Global Legal Group Ltd. and the contributors accept no responsibility for losses that may arise from reliance upon information contained in this publication.This publication is intended to give an indication of legal issues upon which you may need advice. Full legal advice should be taken from a qualified professional when dealing with specific situations.

Continued Overleaf

WWW.ICLG.COM

General Chapter:

2 Australia Clayton Utz: Colin Loveday & Scott Grahame 6

3 Austria Oblin Melichar: Dr. Klaus Oblin 15

4 Belarus Sysouev, Bondar, Khrapoutski SBH Law Office: Timour Sysouev & Alexandre Khrapoutski 22

5 Brazil Souto, Correa, Cesa, Lummertz & Amaral Advogados: Jorge Cesa & Ronaldo Kochem 33

6 British Virgin Islands Lennox Paton: Scott Cruickshank & Matthew Freeman 40

7 Canada Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP: Ryder Gilliland & Daniel Styler 54

8 Costa Rica Axioma Estudio Legal: Andre Vargas Siverio 62

9 Czech Republic Gürlich & Co.: Richard Gürlich & Kamila Janoušková 69

10 Denmark Kammeradvokaten, Law Firm Poul Schmith: Kasper Mortensen & Henrik Nedergaard Thomsen 76

11 Ecuador Quevedo & Ponce: Alejandro Ponce Martínez 84

12 England & Wales Covington & Burling LLP: Greg Lascelles & Salah Mattoo 90

13 Finland Waselius & Wist: Tanja Jussila 102

14 Germany ARNECKE SIBETH Rechtsanwälte Steuerberater Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB: Dr. Robert Safran & Ulrich Steppler 110

15 Ghana Sam Okudzeto & Associates: Esine Okudzeto & Rosemary Owusu 119

16 Indonesia Makarim & Taira S.: Alexandra Gerungan & Raditya Anugerah Titus 126

17 Ireland McCann FitzGerald: Seán Barton & Megan Hooper 133

18 Japan Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu: Koki Yanagisawa 142

19 Korea Bae, Kim & Lee LLC: Kap-You (Kevin) Kim & John P. Bang 150

20 Luxembourg Loyens & Loeff Luxembourg S.à.r.l.: Véronique Hoffeld 157

21 Macedonia Polenak Law Firm: Tatjana Popovski Buloski & Aleksandar Dimic 164

22 Nigeria Kentuadei Adefe, Legal Practitioners, Mediators & Arbitrators: Kentuadei Adefe & Ottah Nelson 174

23 Poland Kubas Kos Gałkowski: Paweł Sikora & Wojciech Wandzel 183

24 Portugal Rogério Alves & Associados – Sociedade de Advogados, R.L.: Rogério Alves 191

25 Romania Zamfirescu Racoţi & Partners Attorneys at Law: Cosmin Vasile & Alina Tugearu 199

26 South Africa Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr Inc: Pieter Conradie & Anja Hofmeyr 207

27 Spain BROSETA: Patricia Gualde & Alfonso Carrillo 215

28 Sweden Norburg & Scherp Advokatbyrå AB: Fredrik Norburg & Erika Finn 225

29 Switzerland Bär & Karrer Ltd.: Matthew Reiter & Simone Burlet-Fuchs 232

30 Turkey Gün + Partners: Pelin Baysal & Beril Yayla Sapan 240

31 Turks & Caicos Islands Kobre & Kim: Tim Prudhoe & Alexander Heylin 248

32 United Arab Emirates Hamdan AlShamsi Lawyers & Legal Consultants: Hamdan Alshamsi 255

33 USA – California Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP: Jason D. Russell & Hillary A. Hamilton 262

34 USA – Delaware Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP: Jonathan A. Choa & John A. Sensing 270

35 USA – Florida Richman Greer, P.A.: Leora B. Freire & Leslie Arsenault Metz 278

36 USA – Georgia Holland & Knight LLP: Laurie Webb Daniel & Harold T. Daniel, Jr. 285

37 USA – Illinois Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP: Justin O. Kay 294

Country Question and Answer Chapters:

1 Cybersecurity – Greg Lascelles & Salah Mattoo, Covington & Burling LLP 1

Contributing EditorGreg Lascelles, Covington & Burling LLP

Sales DirectorFlorjan Osmani

Account DirectorOliver Smith

Sales Support ManagerPaul Mochalski

EditorCaroline Collingwood

Senior EditorsSuzie Levy, Rachel Williams

Chief Operating OfficerDror Levy

Group Consulting EditorAlan Falach

PublisherRory Smith

Published byGlobal Legal Group Ltd.59 Tanner StreetLondon SE1 3PL, UKTel: +44 20 7367 0720Fax: +44 20 7407 5255Email: [email protected]: www.glgroup.co.uk

GLG Cover DesignF&F Studio Design

GLG Cover Image SourceiStockphoto

Printed byStephens & George Print GroupApril 2017

Copyright © 2017Global Legal Group Ltd.All rights reservedNo photocopying

ISBN 978-1-911367-44-4 ISSN 1755-1889

Strategic Partners

The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2017

PEFC/16-33-254

PEFC Certified

This product is from sustainably managed forests and controlled sources

www.pefc.org

Country Question and Answer Chapters:

The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2017

38 USA – New Jersey Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP: Andrew B. Joseph & William A. Wright 303

39 USA – New York Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP: Clay J. Pierce & Marsha J. Indych 310

40 USA – Pennsylvania Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP: Michael W. McTigue Jr. & Jennifer B. Dempsey 319

41 USA – Texas Jackson Walker LLP: Retta A. Miller & Devanshi M. Somaya 326

42 USA – Washington, D.C. Miller & Chevalier Chartered: Brian A. Hill & John C. Eustice 333

EDITORIAL

Welcome to the tenth edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Litigation & Dispute Resolution.This guide provides corporate counsel and international practitioners with a comprehensive worldwide legal analysis of the laws and regulations of litigation and dispute resolution.It is divided into two main sections:One general chapter. This chapter provides an overview of Cybersecurity, particularly from a UK perspective.Country question and answer chapters. These provide a broad overview of common issues in litigation and dispute resolution in 41 jurisdictions, with the USA being sub-divided into 10 separate state-specific chapters.All chapters are written by leading litigation and dispute resolution lawyers and industry specialists, and we are extremely grateful for their excellent contributions.Special thanks are reserved for the contributing editor Greg Lascelles of Covington & Burling LLP for his invaluable assistance.Global Legal Group hopes that you find this guide practical and interesting.The International Comparative Legal Guide series is also available online at www.iclg.com.

Alan Falach LL.M. Group Consulting Editor Global Legal Group [email protected]

WWW.ICLG.COM142 ICLG TO: LITIGATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION 2017© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

Chapter 18

Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Koki Yanagisawa

Japan

1.3 What are the main stages in civil proceedings in your jurisdiction? What is their underlying timeframe (please include a brief description of any expedited trial procedures)?

Japanese civil proceedings consist mainly of a series of hearingproceduresandthereisnocleardistinctionbetweenapre-trialstageandatrialstage.At the first date of hearing procedures, a plaintiff’s complaintandadefendant’sanswerareofficiallysubmittedto thecourt. Insubsequent hearing procedures, both parties submit their factualandlegalargumentsandevidencesupportingtheargumentstothecourt. While the factsadmittedby theopposingparty requirenoevidenceandshallbindthecourtandbothparties,thefactsdeniedbytheopposingpartymustbeprovedbyevidence.Throughsuchhearing procedures, the judgewill identify thematerial issues indisputeforwhichthecourtshouldconductfact-findingsthroughtheexaminationofwitnessesandotherevidence.Forsuchpurposeofidentifyingtheissues,thecourtmaytakeprocedurestoextensivelydiscuss issues and evidencewith the parties, if appropriate. Thecourt thenholds examinationofwitnesses. Ingeneral,witnessesare subject to cross-examinations in relation to thematters raisedduring direct examinations. Even judges may supplementarilyexaminewitnesses.Aftertheexaminationofwitnessesisconcluded,thecourtclosesthehearingproceduresandthenmovestorenditionofjudgment.TheActonExpeditingTrialsprovides that aperiodof twoyearsshould be a target period for the completion of the first instanceofthecivilproceedings.Inpractice,however,thedurationofanygivencourtproceedingswilllikelydependonthecomplexityofeachcaseor theargumentsandevidencesubmittedto theproceedings.Onaverage,acourt judgmentinthefirst instanceisrenderedoneandahalftotwoyearsafterthecommencementofthelawsuit.Ifanappeal to thecompetenthighcourt isfiled, itwouldgenerallytakeadditionaloneyear toobtain thehighcourt judgment. IfanappealtotheSupremeCourtisfiled,itwouldfurthertakeatleastsixmonthsfortheSupremeCourttorenderthefinaljudgmentand,insomecases,itwouldtakemorethanacoupleofyears.Regarding expedited trial procedures, the Labour TribunalProceedings handle relatively small labour and employmentdisputesandthecourtmustconcludetheproceedingsbeforethreehearingsessionsareheld.

I. LITIGATION

1 Preliminaries

1.1 What type of legal system has your jurisdiction got? Are there any rules that govern civil procedure in your jurisdiction?

Japan is considered a civil law jurisdiction and has adoptedadversarialcivilproceedings.NojurysystemhasbeenadoptedinthecivilproceedingsinJapan.TheCodeofCivilProceduresmainlygovernsthecivilproceduresin Japan. It is generally considered that lower court judgeswilllikelyfollowtherulesstipulatedintheSupremeCourtdecisions.

1.2 How is the civil court system in your jurisdiction structured? What are the various levels of appeal and are there any specialist courts?

TheJapanesecivilcourtsystemisstructuredasasystemofthreeinstances. Inordinarycivil cases, aplaintiff canfileacomplaintwithacompetentdistrictcourtasthecourtoffirstinstance.Apartyhasarighttofileanappealagainstadistrictcourtjudgmentwithahighcourthavingjurisdictionoverthecase(kosoappeal),anditispossibletofurtherfileanappealagainstahighcourtjudgmentwiththeSupremeCourt(jokokuappealandapetitionforadmissionofajokokuappeal).AjokokuappealandapetitionforadmissionofajokokuappealtotheSupremeCourtcanbemadeforlimitedreasonssetforthintheCodeofCivilProcedures.Iftheamountofclaimsoughtis1,400,000Japaneseyenorless,aplaintiffmust file the claimwith a competent summary court, asopposedtoadistrictcourt,asthecourtoffirstinstance.Apartyhasarighttofileakosoappealagainstasummarycourtjudgmentwitha competent district court and thenfile a jokoku appeal against adistrictcourtjudgmentwithacompetenthighcourt.Regardingspecialistcourts, theJapanesecourtsystemestablishedfamilycourtstohandlethecasesinvolvingfamilymatterssuchasthose relating to inheritance andmarriage/divorce. The IP HighCourt was established in 2005 to handle intellectual propertycasesas thecourtofsecondinstance. Inaddition,TokyoDistrictCourt, Osaka District Court and other major district courts havespecial divisions which handle cases requiring certain expertisesuch as intellectual property law, commercial law, administrativelaw, medical law, bankruptcy and insolvency law, labour andemploymentlaw.

ICLG TO: LITIGATION & DISPUTE RESOLUTION 2017 143WWW.ICLG.COM© Published and reproduced with kind permission by Global Legal Group Ltd, London

Japa

n

Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu Japan

1.4 What is your jurisdiction’s local judiciary’s approach to exclusive jurisdiction clauses?

Exclusive jurisdictionclausesareconsideredvalidunder theCodeofCivil Procedures on the condition that such clauses are agreeduponbythepartiesinwritingandspecificallycoveracertainlegalrelationship.Inaddition,forinternationalcases,exclusivejurisdictionclausessetforthinconsumercontractsandlabourcontractswillbevalidonlywhencertainrequirementsarefulfilled,forthepurposeofprotectingtheinterestsofconsumersandemployees.

1.5 What are the costs of civil court proceedings in your jurisdiction? Who bears these costs? Are there any rules on costs budgeting?

A plaintiff must pay a filing fee when initiating civil courtproceedings, the amount of which is determined based on theamountofclaimsought.Aplaintiffmayrecoverthefilingfeeandotherminor expenses such as travel expenses forwitnesses fromthedefendantpursuanttothefinalcourtjudgmentinfavouroftheplaintiff. On theotherhand, theplaintiffmaybe required topayminorexpensessuchas travelexpensesforwitnesses incurredbya defendant if the defendant prevails in the lawsuit. Each partyhas topay itsownattorneys’ fees forcivil courtproceedingsandmaynotrecoversuchfeesevenifthepartyprevailsinthelawsuit,in principle. There are no specific rules or regulations on costsbudgetingunderJapaneselaw.

1.6 Are there any particular rules about funding litigation in your jurisdiction? Are contingency fee/conditional fee arrangements permissible?

Whilethecalculationformulaforattorneys’feessolelydependsonan agreement between the attorney and the client, it is relativelycommonthataclientpaystoitsattorneys(i)aretainerfeecalculatedbymultiplyingacertainpercentagebytheamountofclaimsoughtinthelawsuit,plus(ii)asuccessfeetobecalculatedbymultiplyingacertainpercentagebytheamountofclaimaffirmedbythecourt.AttorneyscanactforclaimantsonacontingencyfeebasisinJapan.Although 100% contingency arrangements are not specificallyprohibitedunderJapaneselaw,therulesofethicsforattorneysmaybeinterpretedtopreventsucharrangementsfrombeingadoptedandsucharrangementsarerarelyusedunderJapanesepractice.Itisalsopossibletoadoptanhourlychargearrangement.

1.7 Are there any constraints to assigning a claim or cause of action in your jurisdiction? Is it permissible for a non-party to litigation proceedings to finance those proceedings?

UnderJapaneselaw,itisprohibitedtoassignaclaimtoathirdpartyprimarily for the purpose of having the third partyfile a lawsuit.Ontheotherhand,thereisnolegislationprohibitingorspecificallyrestrictinglitigationfundinginJapan.Assuch,aplaintiffmayfilealawsuitwiththird-partyfunding;however,itwillbeconsideredasaviolationoftheAttorneysActifthethirdpartyprovideslegaladvicetotheplaintiffandtakesashareofanyproceedsfromthelawsuit.

1.8 Can a party obtain security for/a guarantee over its legal costs?

Insurance firms provide a scheme under which a defendant mayshare its risk of receiving a monetary judgment from the court

subject to the relevant regulations. For instance, it is commonfordirectorstoinsurethemselvesagainsttheriskofshareholders’derivativelawsuit.

2 Before Commencing Proceedings

2.1 Is there any particular formality with which you must comply before you initiate proceedings?

Withafewexceptions,thereisnoparticularformalitywithwhichplaintiffs must comply before initiating the civil proceedings inJapan.Exceptionsincluderequirementstofileapetitionforreviewof certain orders rendered by the governmental entities beforefilingalawsuitwiththecourtseekingcancellationofsuchorders.Another exampleof exceptions is a requirement for aplaintiff togothroughmediationproceedingsbeforefilingalawsuitassertinga claim to increaseordecrease theamountof rentof real estatesagainstlandlords.

2.2 What limitation periods apply to different classes of claim for the bringing of proceedings before your civil courts? How are they calculated? Are time limits treated as a substantive or procedural law issue?

Claims for compensation for damage caused by tort must bebroughttothecourtwithin(i)20yearsfromthedateonwhichtheallegedtortoccurred,or(ii)threeyearsfromthedateonwhichtheplaintiff first became aware of the alleged tort,whichever periodmayelapseearlier.Othercivilclaimsmustbebroughttothecourtwithin10yearsfromthedateonwhichtheclaimcanbeexercised,inprinciple.Therearemultipleexceptionsfortheaforesaid10-yearperiod,whichincludesafive-yearlimitationperiodforcommercialclaims.UnderJapaneselaw,thestatuteoflimitationsistreatedasapartofthesubstantivelaw,inprinciple.Thecourtmaynotupholddamageclaimsafter theexpirationof the20-yearperiodexplainedabove.Ontheotherhand,evenaftertheexpirationofthethree-yearperiodfor damage claims and the 10-year period for other civil claims,includingthefive-yearperiodforcommercialclaims,thecourtmayuphold the claims if the defendant does not bring the defence ofstatuteoflimitation.

3 Commencing Proceedings

3.1 How are civil proceedings commenced (issued and served) in your jurisdiction? What various means of service are there? What is the deemed date of service? How is service effected outside your jurisdiction? Is there a preferred method of service of foreign proceedings in your jurisdiction?

Aplaintiffmustsubmittothecourtacomplaintwithadescriptionofclaimsoughtaswellascausesofaction.Aplaintiffmustpayafilingfee,theamountofwhichisdeterminedbasedontheamountofclaimsought(e.g.,afeeof50,000Japaneseyenmustbepaidforaclaimintheamountof10millionJapaneseyen).Inorderforthecivilproceedingstobecommenced,thecourtmustserve a summons and a copy of the complaint on the defendant.Asaprimarymeansofservice,thecourtclerkinchargewillsendsummonsandacopyofthecomplainttothedefendant’sdomicileor principal office by special registered mail and the service iscompleted upon receipt of the documents by the defendant. If a


Japa

n


defendant refuses to receive the aforementioned documents, thecourtclerkcan thensend thedocumentsagainanddeem that theserviceiscompletedatthetimewhenthedocumentshavebeensentoutagaintothedefendant,regardlessofwhetherthedocumentsareactuallyreceivedbythedefendant.Ifthedomicileortheprincipalofficeofthedefendantisunknown,asummonsandacopyofthecomplaintcanbedeemedtohavebeenservedwhentwoweekshavepassedsincethedateonwhichthecourtpostsanoticeonitsbulletinboard that the court clerk is ready to deliver the aforementioneddocumentstothedefendant.RegardingtheserviceondefendantsoutsideJapan,itshouldbenotedthatJapanisasignatoryoftheHagueServiceConventionandtheHagueCivilProcedureConvention.Inaddition,Japanhasenteredinto bilateral treaties on service of process with several foreigncountries. Accordingly, a summons and a copyof the complaintare typically served on the defendants in foreign jurisdiction inaccordancewiththeaforementionedconventionsortreaties.Summonsandother legaldocumentsofforeignproceedingsmustbe served on defendants located in Japan in accordancewith theHagueServiceConvention,meaningthatthelegaldocumentsmustbeservedondefendantsinJapanthroughtheMinistryofForeignAffairsandtheSupremeCourtofJapan.ItisgenerallyconsideredthataserviceoflegaldocumentsonadefendantinJapanbymeansofdirectinternationalmailorcouriershallbeinvalid.

3.2 Are any pre-action interim remedies available in your jurisdiction? How do you apply for them? What are the main criteria for obtaining these?

The Civil PreservationAct provides pre-action interim remediessuch as provisional attachment and provisional injunction. Apotential plaintiff can file a separate petition for such interimremedies with the court, typically in advance of filing a lawsuiton the merits. Generally, a plaintiff must demonstrate that theyhaveclaims tobepreservedagainstdefendant(s)and that there isa“necessity”fortheinterimrelief,basedonprima facieevidence,inorder toobtain the interim remedies. Inmost cases, the courtwill require thataplaintiffprovidesecuritydeposit inadvanceofrenderinganorderofinterimrelief.

3.3 What are the main elements of the claimant’s pleadings?

Aplaintiffisrequiredtodescribeinacomplaintapurportofclaimsought, causesofaction for theclaim,andother facts relevant tothe claim aswell as legal arguments supporting the claim. It isparticularlynecessaryforaplaintifftopleadthecausesofactionfortheclaimsought,namely,thefactsconstitutingtheelementsoftheclaim.Aplaintiffwillfurtherneedtopleadthefactsconstitutingtheelementsoftherebuttalsagainstthedefendant’sdefence.

3.4 Can the pleadings be amended? If so, are there any restrictions?

Whileitispossibletoamendthepleadingsinprinciple,itwouldnotbepossibleforaplaintifftoamendthepleadingsoffactsconstitutingtheelementsoftheclaimwithoutobtainingthedefendant’sconsentoncethedefendantadmittedsuchfacts.Inaddition,thecourtmayconsider, in its fact-finding, that the amended pleadings are notcredible.It is possible for a plaintiff to amend the claims in the sameproceedingsonconditionthatthereisnodifferenceinthebasisofsuchclaimsandtheamendmenttotheclaimswillnotcauseundue

delayintheproceedings.Whenthedefendantalreadysubmittedaresponsetotheinitialclaimsonthemerits,itisnecessarytoobtainconsentfromthedefendantinordertoamendtheclaims.

3.5 Can the pleadings be withdrawn? If so, at what stage and are there any consequences?

While it is possible to withdraw the pleadings in principle, itwouldnotbepossibleforaplaintiff towithdrawthepleadingsoffacts constituting theelementsof theclaimwithoutobtaining thedefendant’sconsentoncethedefendantadmittedsuchfacts.Itispossibleforaplaintifftowithdrawtheclaimsuntilthejudgmentbecomesfinal.Whenthedefendantalreadysubmittedaresponsetotheclaimsonthemerits,itisnecessarytoobtainconsentfromthedefendantinordertowithdrawtheclaims.

4 Defending a Claim

4.1 What are the main elements of a statement of defence? Can the defendant bring counterclaims/claim or defence of set-off?

In responding to a plaintiff’s claims set forth in the complaint, adefendantisrequiredtosubmitaresponsetothecomplaint,whichincludesarequesttothecourttodismisstheclaims,admissionordenial of each of the plaintiff’s factual and legal arguments, andthedefendant’scounterargumentsagainsttheplaintiff’sfactualandlegalarguments,includingdefenceofset-off. Inordertoseekanearlyresolutionofthecase,thedefendantmayrequestthecourttodismisstheclaimsduetoreasonsotherthanthoseonthemeritssuchaslackofjurisdictionandlackofstanding.Thedefendantmayfileacounterclaim,whichhasconnectionswiththeclaimsbroughtbytheplaintiff,withthesamecourt.

4.2 What is the time limit within which the statement of defence has to be served?

Prior to the first hearing date (typically, one week prior to thefirsthearingdate),adefendantisrequiredtofilearesponsetothecomplainttodescribewhethertodenyoradmittheplaintiff’sfactualandlegalargumentssetforthinthecomplaint.Ifadefendantwishestorequestthecourttodismisstheclaimsduetoreasonsotherthanthoseonthemeritssuchaslackofjurisdictionandlackofstanding,thedefendantmustsubmitsuchdefenceatthesametimeas,orpriorto,submittingitsdefenceonthemerits.Followingthefirsthearingdate,therewillbeaseriesofhearingsheldonceamonthoronceeveryfewmonthstoexchangebriefsanddocumentaryevidenceandthedefendantcansubmitdefenceonthemeritsduringthecourseofthehearings.

4.3 Is there a mechanism in your civil justice system whereby a defendant can pass on or share liability by bringing an action against a third party?

Thereisamechanismwherebyadefendantgivesanoticeoflawsuittoathirdpartywhohasalegalinterestintheresultofthelawsuitin that the defendant could pass on the liability to, or share itsliabilitywith, such thirdparty. It ispossible for such thirdpartywhoreceivedthenoticetojointhelawsuitasanassistingintervener.Onceathirdpartyreceivessuchnoticeoflawsuit,suchthirdpartywillnotbeallowedtodisputecertainfactsinasubsequentlawsuitwiththedefendant.


Japa

n

JapanNagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu

4.4 What happens if the defendant does not defend the claim?

If a defendant does not attend the first hearing date withoutsubmitting any response to a plaintiff’s complaint, the courtmaydeem that the defendant has admitted all the factual and legalargumentssetforthinthecomplaintandmayrenderajudgmentinfavouroftheplaintiff.

4.5 Can the defendant dispute the court’s jurisdiction?

Yes,defendantscandisputethecourt’sjurisdiction.Ifadefendantwishes to request the court to dismiss the claims due to lack ofjurisdiction, the defendantmust submit such defence at the sametimeas,orpriorto,submittingitsdefenceonthemerits.

5 Joinder & Consolidation

5.1 Is there a mechanism in your civil justice system whereby a third party can be joined into ongoing proceedings in appropriate circumstances? If so, what are those circumstances?

There is amechanismwherebya thirdpartycan joinanongoinglawsuitasanassistingintervenerforthepurposeofassistingoneofthepartiestothelawsuitifsuchthirdpartyhasalegalinterestintheresultofthelawsuit(e.g.,thedefendantcouldpassontheliabilityto,orshareitsliabilitywith,suchthirdpartyinasubsequentlawsuitifthedefendantlosesintheongoinglawsuit).Oncethethirdpartyhasjoinedtheongoinglawsuitasanassistingintervener,suchthirdpartywill notbe allowed todispute certain facts in a subsequentlawsuitwiththepartywhomthethirdpartyassisted.There is another mechanism whereby a third party can join anongoing lawsuit as an independent intervener by bringing anindependentclaimagainstbothoreitheroftheparties.Itispossiblefora thirdparty to joinasan independent intervener if such thirdparty’srightsmaybeinfringedasaresultoftheongoinglawsuitorifsuchthirdparty’srightsarethesubjectmatteroftheongoinglawsuit.

5.2 Does your civil justice system allow for the consolidation of two sets of proceedings in appropriate circumstances? If so, what are those circumstances?

UndertheCodeofCivilProcedures,ifrightsorobligations,whicharethesubjectmatterofthelawsuits,arecommontotwoormorepersonsorarebasedonthesamefactualorstatutorycause, thesepersonsmay sue or be sued as co-parties. The same shall applywhere rights or obligations, which are the subject matter of thelawsuits,areofthesamekindandbasedonthesamekindoffactualorstatutorycauses.Moreover,underJapanesecourtpractice, ifmultiplesimilarcasesarefiledwiththesamecourt,thosecasestendtobeassignedtothesamedivisionof thecourtsothat thesamejudgescanhandlethesimilar cases, unless there are anycircumstances thatwouldgiveadverseeffectsontheefficiencyoftheprocedures.Similar actions could be grouped together for adjudication through“consolidationofhearingprocedures”basedonthediscretionofthecourtdependingoncircumstancessuchasatimingoffilingacomplaint,whetherthesubjectmatteriscommontothemultiplelawsuitsatissue,andwhetherthesamecounselisrepresentingthecases.

5.3 Do you have split trials/bifurcation of proceedings?

TheCodeofCivilProceduresallowsthecourttosplitthehearingproceduresinvolvingmultipleclaimsand/ormultiplepartiesatthediscretionofthecourt.Ifmultiplehearingproceduresareillegallyconsolidatedorifmultiplepartiesareillegallyinvolvedinthesamehearing procedures as co-parties, the courtmust split the hearingprocedures.

6 Duties & Powers of the Courts

6.1 Is there any particular case allocation system before the civil courts in your jurisdiction? How are cases allocated?

Japanesecivilcourtstypicallyhavemultiplecivilaffairsdivisionsthathandlecivilcasesandthecourthasthediscretioninallocatingthecases toeachdivision. CasesrequiringcertainexpertisesuchasintellectualpropertylawwillbeassignedtospecialdivisionsinsomemajordistrictcourtssuchasTokyoDistrictCourtandOsakaDistrictCourt.

6.2 Do the courts in your jurisdiction have any particular case management powers? What interim applications can the parties make? What are the cost consequences?

Japanese civil courts have the discretion to a certain extent indetermining how to proceed with the hearing procedures. It isnoteworthy that the civil courts canmake an attempt to urge theparties to engage in settlement discussions anytime during thecourseofthehearingprocedures.Partiescanaskthecourttostartsettlement discussions at a time deemed appropriate during thecourseofthehearingprocedures.Insomecasessuchasthoseinvolvingcomplicatedtechnicalissuesinconstructiondisputesormedicalmalpracticedisputes, thecourtmay temporarily assign the case to the mediation division wherecertainexpertscanbeinvolvedintheprocedurestogiveopinionstofacilitatethepartiestoexchangeargumentsandconductsettlementdiscussions.We do not believe that Japanese courts have the particular casemanagementpowerthatwouldaffectthecostsbornebytheparties.

6.3 What sanctions are the courts in your jurisdiction empowered to impose on a party that disobeys the court’s orders or directions?

TheActonMaintenanceofOrderinCourtroomsimposessanctionsonapersonwhodisobeyedthecourt’sordersissuedforthepurposeofmaintaining theorder in the courtroom. However, there is noconceptofcontemptofcourtandthereisnootherspecificlegislationinJapanthatempowersthecourttoimposesanctionsonapartythatdisobeysthecourt’sordersordirections.

6.4 Do the courts in your jurisdiction have the power to strike out part of a statement of case or dismiss a case entirely? If so, at what stage and in what circumstances?

Japanesecourtshave thepower todismissapartofaclaimor todismissaclaimentirelybyafinaljudgment.Japanesecourtsmay


Japa

n


renderaninterimjudgmentonpreliminaryissuessuchasthecourt’sjurisdictionoverthecasepriortoreviewingtheissuesonthemerits.

6.5 Can the civil courts in your jurisdiction enter summary judgment?

Japanesecivil courtproceedingsdonothavea systemofpre-trialproceduresandJapanesecivilcourtsdonotentersummaryjudgment.

6.6 Do the courts in your jurisdiction have any powers to discontinue or stay the proceedings? If so, in what circumstances?

Japanese civil courts must or may discontinue or stay the civilproceedingsinaccordancewiththeCodeofCivilProcedures.Forinstance,intheeventthatapartytoalawsuitdiesorisdissolveddue tomerger, thecourtmust stay theproceedings ifnoattorneyforsuchpartywasappointed.Intheeventthatapartyreceivesabankruptcyorder,thecourtmuststaytheproceedingsforalawsuitrelating to the properties subject to the bankruptcy procedures.In the event that a party to a divorce case dies, the court mustdiscontinuetheproceedings.Intheeventthatapartycannotcontinuetoengageintheproceedingsforunavoidablereasonsforanunlimitedperiodoftime,thecourtmaystaytheproceedings.Theproceedingsshallstayintheeventthatthecourtcannotcontinueitsdutiesduetonaturaldisasterandotherunavoidablereasons.

7 Disclosure

7.1 What are the basic rules of disclosure in civil proceedings in your jurisdiction? Is it possible to obtain disclosure pre-action? Are there any classes of documents that do not require disclosure? Are there any special rules concerning the disclosure of electronic documents or acceptable practices for conducting e-disclosure, such as predictive coding?

Unlike in common law jurisdictions, there is no comprehensivediscovery scheme (e.g., document production, depositions, andinterrogatories)availableinJapanesecivilproceedings.Whilethecivilproceedingsarepending,apartymayrequestthecourttoordertheopposingpartyorathirdpartytoproduceparticulardocuments,withcertain limitationsset forth in theCodeofCivilProcedures.For instance, there is no obligation for a party to disclose (i) adocumentrelatingtomattersforwhichtheholderoracertainrelatedpersonislikelytobesubjecttocriminalprosecutionorconviction,(ii)adocumentconcerningasecretinrelationtoapublicofficer’sduties, which is, if produced, likely to harm the public interestor substantially hinder the performance of public duties, (iii) adocument containing any factwhich certainprofessionals (e.g., adoctor,anattorneyatlaw,aregisteredforeignlawyer)havelearntinthecourseoftheirdutiesandwhichshouldbekeptsecret,(iv)adocumentcontainingmattersconcerning technicalorprofessionalsecrets,or(v)adocumentpreparedexclusivelyforusebytheholder.Inordertorenderadocumentproductionorderagainstathirdparty,itisnecessaryforthecourttoobtainopinionfromsuchthirdparty.Under the Code of Civil Procedures, it is possible for a potentialplaintifftoobtainacourtorderofpreservationofevidencebeforefilingalawsuitiftherearecircumstanceswhereitwouldbecomedifficulttouseevidenceunlesssuchevidenceisreviewedinadvance,whichorderessentiallyservesasanorderofpre-actiondisclosureofevidence.

Inaddition,whileanypersonisallowedtoperusethecaserecordofthecivilproceedings,includingbriefsandevidencesubmittedbytheparties,atthecourthousepursuanttotheCodeofCivilProcedures,thepartytothecaseisentitledtofileapetitionrequestingthecourttorenderanordertorestricttheperusalofdocumentsconstitutingprivateinformationandtradesecretsbyanythirdparty.In Japan, there are no special rules concerning the disclosureof electronic documents or acceptable practices for conductinge-disclosure,suchaspredictivecoding.

7.2 What are the rules on privilege in civil proceedings in your jurisdiction?

Unlike in common law jurisdictions, there is no concept ofattorney-client privilege or other privilege to protect attorney-client communication or attorney materials under Japanese law.Whileattorneyshavetheright torefusetestimonyconcerningthecommunicationwiththeclientandarenotobligedtoproducethedocumentsexchangedwiththeclients,clientsaregrantednorighttoprotecttheircommunicationswiththeirattorneys.

7.3 What are the rules in your jurisdiction with respect to disclosure by third parties?

Pleaseseequestion7.1.

7.4 What is the court’s role in disclosure in civil proceedings in your jurisdiction?

Under the Code of Civil Procedures, each party must submitdocumentaryevidencebyitself,inprinciple,andthecourtprovidesassistance for disclosure for the parties to a certain extent. Forinstance,asexplainedinquestion7.1,thecourtmayrender,attherequestofapartytothelawsuit,anorderagainsttheopposingpartyorathirdpartytoproduceparticulardocuments.

7.5 Are there any restrictions on the use of documents obtained by disclosure in your jurisdiction?

Apartytolawsuitwhoobtainedthedocumentsthroughthecourt’sorderofproductionofdocumentsmaysubmitapartof,orthewholeof,suchdocumentsasdocumentaryevidencetothecivilproceedings.Oncethedocumentsaresubmittedtothecivilproceedingsasdocumentaryevidence,thereisnorestrictionontheuseofthedocumentaryevidencebythepartiesunlessthecourtrendersanorderofrestrictiononperusalofsuchdocumentaryevidence,inwhichcasethepartiesareobligednottodisclosesuchdocumentaryevidencetoanythirdparty.

8 Evidence

8.1 What are the basic rules of evidence in your jurisdiction?

Evidencemustbesubmittedtothehearingproceduresbythepartiesandevidencenotsubmittedtothehearingproceduresshallnotbetakenintoconsiderationinfindingfactsasthebasisofjudgmenttoberenderedbythecourt.Partiesmustsubmitevidenceinordertoprovethattheallegedfactsconstitutingtheelementsoftheclaimorthedefencearehighlyprobable.Whenrenderingajudgment,thecourtshalldecidewhetherornottheallegationsonfactsaretrueinlightoftheresultoftheexaminationofevidenceandbasedonitsfreedetermination.


Japa

n


8.2 What types of evidence are admissible, which ones are not? What about expert evidence in particular?

Authenticityofdocumentaryevidencemustbeattestedinorderfortheevidencetobeadmissibleasthebasisofthejudgment.Therearenoparticularlimitationsontheformsofevidencethatmaybeadmissible. NohearsayrulesareappliedtoevidenceinJapanesecivilproceedings. Thereareno specific rulesonadmissibilityofexpertevidence.

8.3 Are there any particular rules regarding the calling of witnesses of fact? The making of witness statements or depositions?

Apartytothelawsuitmaymakearequestforwitnessexaminationtothecourtandthecourtdetermineswhetherornotsuchwitnessexaminationistobeconducted,takingintoconsiderationwhetheritisnecessarytoconductsuchwitnessexaminationforthepurposeoffindingtherelevantfacts.Uponmakingsuchrequest,apartyusuallysubmitsawrittenstatementofthewitnesstothecourtinorderforthecourttoconsiderwhethertocallthewitness. DepositionsarenotavailableinJapanesecivilproceedings.

8.4 Are there any particular rules regarding instructing expert witnesses, preparing expert reports and giving expert evidence in court? Does the expert owe his/her duties to the client or to the court?

A party to the lawsuit may submit to the court, as documentaryevidence,anexpert reportpreparedbyanexpertappointedbysuchparty.Inordertoexaminethecredibilityofsuchreport,theopposingpartymayrequestthecourttoconductcross-examinationoftheexpert.Furthermore,apartymayrequestthecourttoappointanexperttoprovide an expert opinion and the court then determineswhetheror not it is necessary to appoint such expert. Once an expert isappointed by the court, such expert is obliged to give an expertopinionprovidedthathe/shehasexpertiseintherelevantfield.

9 Judgments & Orders

9.1 What different types of judgments and orders are the civil courts in your jurisdiction empowered to issue and in what circumstances?

Japanesecivilcourtsareempowered torendera formal judgmenttoaffirmorrejectaclaimonthemeritsafterthehearingproceduresare concluded. Regarding monetary claims, the courts render adeclaration of preliminary execution along with the judgment infavour of a plaintiff, which enables the plaintiff to preliminarilyexecutethejudgmentbeforeitbecomesfinal.The courts are also empowered to render a judgment rejecting aclaimwhichdoesnotfulfilprerequisitesforbringingtheclaimtothecourtsuchasthecourt’sjurisdictionoverthecase.Japanesecivilcourtsarealsoempoweredtorenderanorderwithoutgoing through the hearing procedures, which includes an orderto produce documents described in question 7.1 and an order ofprovisionalattachmentunder theCivilPreservationActdescribedinquestion3.2.

9.2 What powers do your local courts have to make rulings on damages/interests/costs of the litigation?

Japanese courts have powers tomake rulings on the delinquencycharges and interests incurred for the claims on the merits inaccordancewiththerelevantstatute.Theycanalsomakerulingsonwhichpartyshallbarethelitigationcosts,notincludingattorneys’fees,whenrenderingaformaljudgmentonthemerits.

9.3 How can a domestic/foreign judgment be recognised and enforced?

Domestic judgments with “title of obligation” (saimu-meigi),which includeafinal andbinding judgment anda judgmentwithdeclarationofpreliminaryexecution,canbeenforcedbyobtainingacertificateofobligationfromthecourt.Monetaryjudgmentscanbeenforcedbyattachingthepropertiesofdebtor.Judgmentsrequiringconductsbydebtorcanbeenforcedbyobtaininganindirectcompulsoryorderunderwhichthedebtormustpaypenaltiesfordisobedienceofthejudgment.Afinal judgment rendered by a foreign court can be enforced inJapan by obtaining an execution judgment from the competentJapanese court. In order to obtain such judgment, the foreignjudgment must fulfil the requirements provided by the Code ofCivil Procedures that: (i) the jurisdiction of the foreign court isadmittedbylawsandordersorbytreaty;(ii)thelosingdefendanthas(a)receivedtheserviceofthesummonsorordersnecessarytocommenceprocedures,excludingservicebypublicnoticeandothersimilarservice,or(b)respondedintheactionwithoutreceivingtheservice;(iii)thecontentsofthejudgmentandtheprocedurearenotcontrarytothepublicorderorgoodmoralsofJapan;and(iv)thereisareciprocalguaranteeregardingtherecognitionofjudgments.

9.4 What are the rules of appeal against a judgment of a civil court of your jurisdiction?

No specific grounds for an appeal to a high court (koso appeal)areprovidedunder theCodeofCivilProceduresand thegroundsincludeerrorinfact-findingsandapplicationoflawinthejudgment.Anappeal to theSupremeCourt (jokoku appeal)canbemadeonthegroundthatthehighcourtjudgmentcontainsaviolationoftheConstitutionoronthegroundthattheproceduresinthelowercourtcontainsanyofthematerialillegalitiessetforthintheCodeofCivilProcedures.Inaddition,partiesmayfilea“petitionforadmissionofajokokuappeal”andtheSupremeCourtmayacceptthepetitionasajokokuappealifitdeemsthatthecaseinvolvesanimportantissue.

10 Settlement

10.1 Are there any formal mechanisms in your jurisdiction by which parties are encouraged to settle claims or which facilitate the settlement process?

During the course of civil proceedings, Japanese courts tend toseekanopportunitytorecommendamicablesettlementofdisputesbefore thecourt (judicial settlement). It iscommonfor thecourttoconfirmwiththepartieswhetherthereisanychanceofjudicialsettlementimmediatelybeforemovingtowitnessexaminationsorimmediately after completing witness examinations (i.e., before


Japa

n


1.4 Can local courts provide any assistance to parties that wish to invoke the available methods of alternative dispute resolution? For example, will a court – pre or post the constitution of an arbitral tribunal – issue interim or provisional measures of protection (i.e. holding orders pending the final outcome) in support of arbitration proceedings, will the court force parties to arbitrate when they have so agreed, or will the court order parties to mediate or seek expert determination? Is there anything that is particular to your jurisdiction in this context?

Japanese courts provide assistance to parties whowish to utilisealternativedisputeresolutioninvariousways.Forinstance,thecourtwillforcethepartiestoarbitratebyrejectingaclaimbrought to thecourtby thepartieswhohaveentered intoanarbitrationagreement. TheArbitrationActallows thecourt toissueinterimorderssuchasprovisionalattachmentundertheCivilPreservationActevenbeforethearbitraltribunalisestablishedandduring thecourseofarbitrationproceedings. TheArbitrationActalsoempowersthecourttoassistanarbitraltribunalandpartiesintakingevidenceifthearbitraltribunalfindsitnecessary.Inaddition,thecourtmayorderthepartiestomediateinthecivilmediationproceduresincertaincaseswhereitisnecessarytoobtainexperts’opinionsinordertofurtheranalysetheissuesindisputeandfacilitatesettlementdiscussionsbetweentheparties.

1.5 How binding are the available methods of alternative dispute resolution in nature? For example, are there any rights of appeal from arbitration awards and expert determination decisions, are there any sanctions for refusing to mediate, and do settlement agreements reached at mediation need to be sanctioned by the court? Is there anything that is particular to your jurisdiction in this context?

Arbitral awards are final and binding and therefore there are norights of appeal from arbitral awards under the Arbitration Actunlessthereareexceptionalreasonsspecificallysetforththerein.Ifpartiesreachasettlementthroughthecivilmediationprocedures,thesettlementtermshavethesameeffectasafinalandbindingcourtjudgmentrenderedthroughtheformallawsuit.Evenifapetitionforcivilmediationisfiledbyapetitioner,arespondentisnotobligedtoattendthemediationproceduresandtheprocedureswillterminateif the respondent does not attend (while theCivilMediationActprovides that an administrative fine is imposed on a party whodidnotattendwithoutdue reasons, it isunlikely that suchfine isactuallyimposed).

2 Alternative Dispute Resolution Institutions

2.1 What are the major alternative dispute resolution institutions in your jurisdiction?

The most major arbitration institution in Japan is the JapanCommercial Arbitration Association (JCAA) for both domesticand international cases. For domestic cases, arbitration centresestablished by local bar associations are frequently used. Fordisputesinvolvingspecificareasoflaw,JapanIntellectualPropertyArbitrationCentre (JIPAC)handles intellectual propertydisputes.

concludingtheproceedingstostartpreparingajudgment).Oncethecourtconsidersthatthereisachanceofreachingjudicialsettlement,thejudgetendstohaveadiscussionwithaplaintiffandadefendantrespectively, and make an attempt to form terms and conditionsagreeablebybothplaintiffanddefendant,persuadingthepartiestomakeconcessions.Whenanagreementisreached,itisputintothecourtrecordandtherecordhasthesameeffectasafinalandbindingjudgment.ManycivilcasesareresolvedbyjudicialsettlementsinJapan.

II. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

1 General

1.1 What methods of alternative dispute resolution are available and frequently used in your jurisdiction? Arbitration/Mediation/Expert Determination/Tribunals (or other specialist courts)/Ombudsman? (Please provide a brief overview of each available method.)

In Japan, mediations, particularly civil mediation proceduresbefore the court, are frequently used as a method of alternativedisputeresolution. Mediationcommitteemembers,asopposedtoprofessional judges,are inchargeofhandling theproceduresandfacilitatingsettlementdiscussionsbetweentheparties.Bothpartiesmay terminate the procedures at any time. Once the settlementtermsareagreedbytheparties,thesettlementtermshavethesameeffectasthefinalandbindingjudgmentbythecourt.Arbitrations are also frequently used as a method of alternativedispute resolution. In particular, agreements on internationalcommercial transactions involving Japanese corporate entitiesusuallyincludeanarbitrationclause.The Japanese Government has established administrative ADRbodies or systems providing opportunities for alternative disputeresolutioninthefieldoflabourandemploymentdisputes,financialandinsurancedisputes,constructiondisputesandsoforth.In addition, certified dispute resolution business providers areproviding various alternative dispute resolution procedures inspecificareasoflawandpractice.

1.2 What are the laws or rules governing the different methods of alternative dispute resolution?

The CivilMediationAct governs the civil mediation proceduresdescribedinquestion1.1.TheArbitrationAct,whichwasenactedin2003inlinewiththeUNCITRALmodellaw,governsthearbitrationproceedings.TheActonPromotionofUseofAlternativeDisputeResolutionwasenactedin2004andprovidestherequirementsforqualificationofcertifieddisputeresolutionbusinessproviders.

1.3 Are there any areas of law in your jurisdiction that cannot use Arbitration/Mediation/Expert Determination/Tribunals/Ombudsman as a means of alternative dispute resolution?

Arbitrationcanonlybeusedfordisputeswhichcanbesettledamicably.Intheareaoflabourandemploymentlaw,arbitrationagreementsforindividuallabourrelationshipshallbevoidundertheArbitrationAct.Arbitrationagreementsforcontractsbetweenconsumersandbusinessoperatorscanbeterminatedbyconsumersundercertaincircumstances.TherestillremaindiscussionsonarbitrabilityinJapan.


Japa

n

Koki YanagisawaNagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu JP Tower, 7-2 Marunouchi 2-chomeChiyoda-kuTokyo 100-7036 Japan

Tel: +81 3 6889 7250Email: [email protected]: www.noandt.com

Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu is the first integrated full-service law firm in Japan and one of the foremost providers of international and commercial legal services based in Tokyo. The firm’s overseas network includes offices in New York, Singapore, Bangkok, Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi and Shanghai, associated local law firms in Jakarta, Beijing and Yangon where our lawyers are on-site, and collaborative relationships with prominent local law firms throughout Asia and other regions. In representing our leading domestic and international clients, we have successfully structured and negotiated many of the largest and most significant corporate, finance and real estate transactions related to Japan. The firm has extensive corporate and litigation capabilities spanning key commercial areas such as antitrust, intellectual property, labour and taxation, and is known for path-breaking domestic and cross-border risk management/corporate governance cases and large-scale corporate reorganisations. The firm’s approximately 370 lawyers work together in customised teams to provide clients with the expertise and experience specifically required for each client matter.

Koki Yanagisawa is a partner in the Litigation Group of Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu. His practice focuses on resolution of disputes in the areas of commercial law, antitrust law, and employment law. He has represented a variety of Japanese and foreign companies in a wide breadth of industries in litigation, arbitration and other dispute resolution procedures.

He earned his LL.B. in 2000 from the University of Tokyo and his LL.M. in 2007 from Columbia Law School, where he was a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar. He engaged in practice of international arbitration at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP from 2007 to 2008.

He was named as one of the top 40 antitrust lawyers under 40 by Global Competition Review in 2012. He was also named as one of the recommended Japanese lawyers by The Legal 500 Asia Pacific 2017 in the areas of Labour and employment and Antitrust and competition law.


TheJapanSportsArbitrationAgency(JSAA)handlessports-relateddisputesandTokyoMaritimeArbitrationCommissionoftheJapanShippingExchange(TOMAC)dealswithcommercialandmaritimematters.In order to initiate the civil mediation proceedings, a petitionerisrequiredtofileapetitionwithacompetentsummarycourtoradistrictcourtagreeduponinadvancebytheparties.

59 Tanner Street, London SE1 3PL, United KingdomTel: +44 20 7367 0720 / Fax: +44 20 7407 5255

Email: [email protected]

www.iclg.com

Other titles in the ICLG series include:

■ Alternative Investment Funds■ Aviation Law■ Business Crime■ Cartels & Leniency■ Class & Group Actions■ Competition Litigation■ Construction & Engineering Law■ Copyright■ Corporate Governance■ Corporate Immigration■ Corporate Investigations■ Corporate Recovery & Insolvency■ Corporate Tax■ Data Protection■ Employment & Labour Law■ Enforcement of Foreign Judgments■ Environment & Climate Change Law■ Family Law■ Fintech■ Franchise■ Gambling

■ Insurance & Reinsurance■ International Arbitration■ Lending & Secured Finance■ Merger Control■ Mergers & Acquisitions■ Mining Law■ Oil & Gas Regulation■ Outsourcing■ Patents■ Pharmaceutical Advertising■ Private Client■ Private Equity■ Product Liability■ Project Finance■ Public Procurement■ Real Estate■ Securitisation■ Shipping Law■ Telecoms, Media & Internet■ Trade Marks■ Vertical Agreements and Dominant Firms

Documents

Litigation & Dispute Resolution 2017