SAKURA Law Office | Legal Update by Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita

September 25, 2026 (fully revised October 5, 2026)

SAKURA Law Office | Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner

SAKURA Law Office has fully revised Legal Update No. 17 by Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita, “Litigating Against a Japanese Company in Japan — Jurisdiction, Governing Law, Evidence, Interim Relief, Digital Procedure, Appeals and Enforcement (2026).”

For a foreign company with a claim against a Japanese counterparty, the decisive question is rarely just whether the claim is legally strong. The dispute must be designed around forum, governing law, available evidence, pre-judgment asset protection, litigation economics, headquarters decision-making and ultimate enforcement. A claim that is persuasive on the merits may still be commercially weak if evidence cannot be assembled, assets are dissipated, an exclusive forum clause points elsewhere, or the cost and timetable are inconsistent with the business objective.

Japan’s civil litigation system also changed materially on May 21, 2026. Ordinary civil litigation entered the full digitalization phase: filings and court-record management can be conducted through the courts’ mints system, and attorneys and other covered litigation representatives are generally required to use electronic procedures. The rollout does not mean that all civil provisional-remedy and enforcement procedures are already fully electronic. Court guidance continues to distinguish those processes, making procedural planning particularly important where an urgent provisional attachment or injunction is required.

This Legal Update reflects Japanese law and official materials available as of October 5, 2026, including the Courts of Japan’s mints materials updated on October 2, 2026. It is written for overseas General Counsel, boards, litigation teams and foreign counsel assessing whether and how to pursue a Japanese company in the Japanese courts.

Executive Summary

Jurisdiction, governing law and dispute-resolution clauses are separate analytical questions. A Japanese company with its principal office in Japan will ordinarily provide a basis for Japanese international jurisdiction, but contractual forum selection, arbitration, place of performance, asset location and the Code of Civil Procedure’s exceptional-circumstances analysis may materially alter the forum strategy.

Japan does not provide U.S.-style broad pretrial discovery. Litigation is judge-led and document-intensive. For foreign claimants, that makes evidence preservation before filing especially important: contracts, emails, chats, virtual data rooms, accounting records, technical logs and relevant internal materials should be secured before retention periods, employee departures or system changes make them difficult to reconstruct. Japanese tools such as document-production orders, pre-action inquiries and preservation of evidence are targeted mechanisms, not substitutes for broad discovery.

The May 21, 2026 digitalization of ordinary civil litigation is operationally significant. Counsel must be ready to manage mints, electronic service and court records, digital evidence and rapid coordination with overseas headquarters. Provisional remedies and civil enforcement remain on a different digitalization timetable, so an urgent asset-freeze application should be planned under the procedure actually applicable to that remedy rather than assuming that all court processes use the same electronic workflow.

If the commercial objective is recovery, enforcement analysis belongs at the beginning of the case. Bank accounts, receivables, real estate and other assets should be considered before judgment, together with provisional attachment where necessary. If a final foreign judgment already exists, recognition under Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure and an enforcement judgment under Article 24 of the Civil Enforcement Act may be more efficient than re-litigating the merits in Japan.

SAKURA Law Office and Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita approach cross-border litigation in Japan as an integrated dispute strategy: forum, governing law, evidence, interim relief, settlement, appeals, enforcement and headquarters governance should be designed together rather than addressed as separate procedural topics.

1. Forum Strategy Comes Before the Merits

A foreign claimant should begin by identifying the legally available and commercially sensible forum. Japan’s Code of Civil Procedure provides international-jurisdiction grounds based on the defendant’s presence in Japan and, depending on the claim, matters such as place of contractual performance, assets and business activity in Japan. Where the defendant is an ordinary Japanese corporation with its principal office in Japan, Japanese jurisdiction will commonly be available, but that is only the first layer of the analysis.

International contracts frequently contain exclusive or non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses or arbitration agreements. Under Article 3-7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an international jurisdiction agreement must address claims arising from a specified legal relationship and satisfy the statutory form requirements. In complex transactions, a master agreement, guarantee, purchase orders and side letters may contain different dispute clauses. Counsel should identify which clause reaches the actual contractual and non-contractual claims before a demand or filing position hardens.

Even where a statutory jurisdictional basis exists, Article 3-9 permits dismissal in exceptional circumstances where proceeding in Japan would impair fairness between the parties or the proper and expeditious conduct of the trial. The location of witnesses and evidence, related proceedings and the burden of litigating in Japan can therefore matter. “Japan has jurisdiction” and “Japan is the best forum” are not the same conclusion.

Governing law must be analyzed separately. Under Japan’s Act on General Rules for Application of Laws, party choice is the starting point for contractual obligations, while different connecting rules apply absent an effective choice and to tort claims. A Japanese court can therefore be required to determine a dispute under foreign substantive law. Where that occurs, the team should budget for foreign-law analysis, expert or practitioner opinions where useful, and translation that explains the foreign rule in a form usable by the Japanese court.

2. Accessing the Japanese Court System: Language, Counsel, mints, Service and Security for Costs

Court proceedings are conducted in Japanese under Article 74 of the Court Act. Foreign-language contracts and evidence can be used, but the portions material to the court’s decision must be presented through accurate Japanese translations. Translation strategy should be selective and forensic: the objective is not to translate the data room but to make the disputed chronology and the legal significance of key documents intelligible to the judge.

Domestic Japanese court representation should be organized around Japanese bengoshi. Registered foreign lawyers and foreign counsel may play important roles in foreign-law analysis, headquarters coordination and international arbitration, but their role in Japanese domestic court proceedings is legally distinct. For large cases, an authority matrix should identify who controls pleadings, foreign-law input, witnesses, experts, settlement authority and reporting to the board or investment committee.

The May 21, 2026 reforms changed the mechanics of ordinary civil litigation. New civil actions can be filed through the mints electronic system, and attorneys and other covered representatives are required to use electronic procedures subject to the applicable exceptions. Filing-fee administration also changed under the post-reform regime. For overseas clients, this means that document collection, translation, approvals and signed authorities should be managed so Japanese counsel can meet electronic filing deadlines without waiting for a separate paper workflow.

The digitalization rollout is not uniform across every adjacent procedure. The Courts of Japan state that civil enforcement is not yet fully digitalized, and the Tokyo District Court currently explains that applications for civil provisional remedies remain outside the May 2026 electronic filing rollout. A claimant seeking an urgent provisional attachment should therefore prepare under the specific provisional-remedy procedure in force, not assume that the merits action and the asset-freeze application will follow identical filing mechanics.

Foreign corporate plaintiffs must also be ready to prove corporate existence, representative authority and authority to appoint Japanese counsel. Depending on the jurisdiction, this may involve certificates of incorporation or good standing, incumbency or secretary certificates, board resolutions and powers of attorney, together with translations and authentication issues. Where foreign parties must be served, the Code of Civil Procedure and, where applicable, the Hague Service Convention or other international channels should be built into the timetable.

A further Japan-specific issue is security for court costs. Under Article 75 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a plaintiff with no domicile, business office or other office in Japan may, on the defendant’s application, be ordered to provide security, subject to statutory and treaty-based exceptions. This is a cash-flow and timing issue that foreign claimants should identify before filing rather than after the defendant raises it.

3. Evidence Strategy in a System Without Broad Discovery

Japan does not have U.S.-style broad pretrial discovery. The parties are expected to develop and submit the evidence supporting their own allegations and defenses. That changes the economics of a cross-border case: counsel should not assume that documents held by the Japanese counterparty will later become broadly accessible simply because litigation has started.

Evidence preservation should therefore begin when a material dispute is reasonably foreseeable. Contracts, invoices, emails, Slack or Teams messages, WhatsApp communications, virtual data-room records, CRM entries, accounting files, board materials, system logs and negotiation history may all become central. Automatic deletion policies, cloud-retention settings and employee departures should be addressed through a defensible litigation hold. In cross-border groups, the hold should be coordinated with privacy, secrecy, data-transfer and privilege rules applicable in other jurisdictions.

Japanese procedure does provide targeted evidence tools. Articles 219 and 220 of the Code of Civil Procedure establish document-production mechanisms, but applications must identify the relevant document and the legal basis for production with a level of specificity that is inconsistent with open-ended fishing. Pre-action inquiries and evidence-collection measures under Articles 132-2 and following may assist in defined circumstances, and preservation of evidence under Article 234 and following can be important where evidence may become difficult to use later.

Witness and expert strategy should also be developed from the pleading architecture, not added at the end. The 2026 reforms allow witness examinations by web conference under specified conditions, but foreign witnesses still raise questions of interpretation, availability, identity verification, preparation and consistency with contemporaneous documents. Accounting, valuation, engineering and technology experts should be instructed on the legal issues the court must decide; a sophisticated technical model that answers the wrong legal question is of limited litigation value.

4. Interim Relief and Asset Strategy Can Determine Whether the Case Has Commercial Value

A final judgment may arrive too late if the defendant can dissipate assets before enforcement. Under Article 20 of the Civil Provisional Remedies Act, provisional attachment may be available to secure a monetary claim where future compulsory enforcement would otherwise become impossible or significantly difficult. Bank accounts, receivables, real estate and other assets may be potential targets depending on the facts and the procedural requirements.

A provisional attachment application ordinarily requires a prima facie showing of the underlying claim and the need for preservation, and the court commonly requires security. This makes asset intelligence and internal authorization essential. A foreign claimant that needs several weeks to approve security funding may lose the practical advantage of emergency relief even if the legal application is strong.

For non-monetary rights, provisional dispositions under Article 23 can preserve property or establish a temporary legal position where serious harm or imminent danger would otherwise arise. IP, confidentiality, non-compete, share, key-asset and business-continuity disputes may therefore require an interim-relief strategy rather than a damages-only strategy.

Asset mapping should start before the merits action. The team should lawfully identify major banks, receivables, real property, public registrations, guarantees and other recovery sources. A legally strong case against a judgment-proof defendant may not justify full-scale litigation; conversely, credible interim relief can change settlement leverage materially.

5. Merits Litigation Is Built Through Written Issue-Framing, Evidence and Settlement Leverage

Japanese commercial litigation is driven heavily by written briefs and documentary evidence. For a foreign company, the challenge is to convert a large international factual record into a sequence the Japanese court can decide: what legal element is disputed, which fact proves or defeats it, and which document or witness establishes that fact. Importing foreign pleadings and translating them literally rarely produces the best Japanese submission.

Settlement is a normal part of Japanese civil litigation. Courts may explore judicial settlement after the factual and legal issues have become clearer, and a settlement recorded by the court can function as an enforceable title. Commercial settlements can resolve matters that a judgment cannot efficiently address, including payment schedules, confidentiality, future supply, licensing, mutual releases and transition arrangements.

For international claimants, settlement governance matters as much as settlement law. Headquarters should set approval thresholds, escalation routes and negotiating ranges so that Japanese counsel can respond when the court tests settlement. If every movement requires a distant board meeting, the client may miss a commercially favorable window.

A party appealing a first-instance judgment must generally act within two weeks of service under Article 285 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Foreign headquarters should therefore prepare appellate governance before judgment. Supreme Court review is substantially narrower than a full merits re-hearing, which makes disciplined issue and evidence development in the first instance and high court especially important.

6. A Judgment Is Valuable Only to the Extent It Can Be Realized

If the defendant does not comply voluntarily, enforcement proceeds under the Civil Enforcement Act. Depending on the asset, the creditor may seek attachment of bank deposits or receivables, execution against real property or other statutory remedies. The process requires an enforceable title and asset identification; a favorable judgment without a recovery plan may have limited commercial value.

Japanese enforcement law also provides, subject to statutory conditions, procedures for disclosure of debtor assets and for obtaining specified information from third parties. These mechanisms can assist but are not substitutes for pre-judgment asset intelligence. The litigation team should update its asset map throughout the case so that enforcement can begin promptly when an enforceable title is available.

Where the claimant already has a final foreign judgment, a fresh Japanese merits action may be unnecessary. Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure addresses recognition of final foreign judgments, including foreign jurisdiction, service or appearance, public policy and reciprocity. Article 24 of the Civil Enforcement Act provides the enforcement-judgment procedure. The Japanese court does not re-try the merits in that proceeding, so recognition analysis should precede any decision to start over in Japan.

Litigation economics should be measured against expected recovery rather than the face amount of the claim. Court costs and actual legal fees are not the same concept, and a successful party does not automatically recover all attorneys’ fees. Translation, experts, security for provisional remedies, travel and enforcement costs should be included in the business case, together with a settlement threshold tied to collection risk.

7. Litigation and International Arbitration Should Be Designed as Part of the Contract’s Enforcement Architecture

There is no universal preference between Japanese court litigation and international arbitration. Japanese courts may be attractive where the defendant, evidence and assets are concentrated in Japan, judicial interim relief is central, or an appeal structure is important. Arbitration may be attractive where the parties value confidentiality, a chosen language, specialist decision-makers, a neutral seat and cross-border enforcement under the New York Convention.

The role of foreign counsel can also differ materially. Japanese domestic court advocacy is built around Japanese bengoshi, while foreign lawyers may have a broader role in qualifying international arbitration proceedings. For global companies, that difference can affect privilege architecture, witness preparation, internal reporting and the ability of lead international counsel to remain at the center of the case.

The forum clause should therefore not be treated as boilerplate. Governing law, jurisdiction, arbitration, service, language, interim relief and enforcement should be designed together by reference to where a dispute would actually be fought and where assets would ultimately be reached. A clause copied from an unrelated transaction can create parallel proceedings, inconsistent obligations or an expensive enforcement detour.

Once a dispute exists, cross-border case management should use a single chronology, document-control protocol, privilege/confidentiality plan and authority matrix across Japanese counsel, headquarters, foreign counsel, experts and insurers. SAKURA Law Office and Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita view the role of Japanese litigation counsel as two-directional: translating Japanese procedural constraints for overseas decision-makers while translating foreign evidence and commercial context into a form that the Japanese court can efficiently adjudicate.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1. Can a foreign company sue a Japanese company directly in Japan?

Yes, where Japanese courts have international jurisdiction and no effective dispute-resolution clause requires another forum. The defendant’s Japanese principal office is a common jurisdictional basis, but the contract and the specific claim still need to be analyzed.

Q2. Does suing in Japan mean Japanese law automatically governs?

No. Jurisdiction and governing law are separate. A Japanese court may apply foreign substantive law depending on the contract and Japan’s conflict-of-laws rules.

Q3. Can Japanese civil litigation be conducted in English?

Court proceedings are conducted in Japanese. Foreign-language evidence can be used, but the material portions generally need accurate Japanese translations so the court can evaluate them.

Q4. Is there U.S.-style discovery in Japan?

No. Japan has targeted mechanisms such as document-production orders, pre-action inquiry and evidence preservation, but not broad pretrial discovery. Pre-filing evidence preservation is therefore especially important.

Q5. Can a foreign plaintiff be ordered to post security for costs?

Yes. Article 75 can require security where the plaintiff has no domicile, business office or other office in Japan, subject to statutory and treaty-based exceptions.

Q6. Can a claimant freeze assets before judgment?

Potentially. Provisional attachment may secure monetary claims and provisional dispositions may protect specified non-monetary rights, subject to the statutory requirements and usually security.

Q7. Are provisional remedies and enforcement fully electronic after the May 2026 reform?

No. Ordinary civil litigation entered full digitalization on May 21, 2026, but provisional-remedy and enforcement procedures do not all follow the same electronic filing regime. Current court guidance should be checked for the specific application.

Q8. Does the losing party pay all of the winner’s attorneys’ fees?

Generally not. Statutory court costs and actual attorneys’ fees are different. Recovery of attorney-related amounts depends on the substantive claim, contractual provisions and other legal grounds.

Q9. If a foreign judgment already exists, must the merits be litigated again in Japan?

Not necessarily. If the judgment satisfies Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the creditor obtains an enforcement judgment under Article 24 of the Civil Enforcement Act, it may be enforceable in Japan without re-litigating the merits.

Q10. Should an international contract choose Japanese courts or arbitration?

There is no universal answer. The decision should reflect asset and evidence location, confidentiality, language, appeal needs, interim relief, cost, the role of foreign counsel and the jurisdictions in which enforcement is likely to be required.

About the Legal Update Series by Kenshiro Michishita

SAKURA Law Office publishes the Legal Update series through the profile of Managing Partner Kenshiro Michishita, addressing major issues for international businesses in corporate law, M&A, cross-border transactions, international disputes, financial regulation, AI and technology, data protection, intellectual property and crisis management.

No. 17 follows the M&A sequence from Legal Updates No. 13 through No. 16 and moves from deal execution into dispute resolution. It also forms part of the cross-border disputes sequence with No. 18 on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and No. 19 on international arbitration.

SAKURA Law Office — Official Website

Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner — Profile

How SAKURA Law Office Can Assist

SAKURA Law Office advises foreign companies, overseas General Counsel and foreign law firms on Japanese commercial litigation, including jurisdiction and governing-law analysis, contractual and M&A disputes, evidence preservation, provisional attachment and provisional disposition, settlement, appeals and compulsory enforcement. We also advise on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and international arbitration.

For cross-border matters, we coordinate in English with overseas headquarters, foreign counsel, accountants, valuation and technical experts and other stakeholders so that Japanese procedural requirements are integrated into the client’s global dispute strategy.

Contact

For advice concerning litigation against a Japanese company, civil litigation in Japan, provisional remedies, enforcement, recognition of foreign judgments, international arbitration or other cross-border commercial disputes, please contact SAKURA Law Office.

SAKURA Law Office

4F Ark Hills South Tower, 4-5 Roppongi 1-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-0032, Japan

Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner

Web: https://sakura-lawyers.jp/en/

Principal References

1. Code of Civil Procedure — e-Gov Laws (official Japanese text) — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/408AC0000000109

2. Act on General Rules for Application of Laws — e-Gov Laws (official Japanese text) — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/418AC0000000078

3. Civil Provisional Remedies Act — e-Gov Laws (official Japanese text) — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/401AC0000000091

4. Civil Enforcement Act — e-Gov Laws (official Japanese text) — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/354AC0000000004

5. Court Act — e-Gov Laws (official Japanese text; Article 74) — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/322AC0000000059

6. Act on Special Measures concerning the Handling of Legal Services by Foreign Lawyers — e-Gov Laws — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/361AC0000000066

7. Act on Special Provisions concerning Civil Procedure for Implementation of Civil Procedure Conventions — e-Gov Laws — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/345AC0000000115

8. Arbitration Act — e-Gov Laws — https://laws.e-gov.go.jp/law/415AC0000000138

9. Courts of Japan — Digitalization of Civil Court Proceedings — https://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/minjidejitaruka/index.html

10. Courts of Japan — Overview of Civil Litigation Procedures under the Amended Code effective May 21, 2026 — https://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/minjidejitaruka/minso_gaiyou/index.html

11. Courts of Japan — Reference Materials for the Amended Civil Procedure Rules / mints — https://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/minjidejitaruka/minso_shiryou/index.html

12. Courts of Japan — Civil Litigation — https://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/syurui/syurui_minzi/minzi_25_20/index.html

13. Courts of Japan — Court Fees — https://www.courts.go.jp/saiban/tetuzuki/tesuuryou/index.html

14. Tokyo District Court — Applications for Civil Provisional Remedies (not covered by the May 2026 electronic filing rollout) — https://www.courts.go.jp/tokyo/saiban/minzi_section09/hozen_ziken_mousitate/index.html

15. Supreme Court of Japan — Questions and Answers on Civil Procedure — https://www.courts.go.jp/english/judicial_sys/qa_on_Civil_Procedure/index.html

16. Supreme Court of Japan — Outline of Civil Procedure in Japan 2025 — https://www.courts.go.jp/english/vc-files/courts-en/Material/Outline_of_Civil_Procedure_in_JAPAN_2025.pdf

17. Ministry of Justice — Manual on Application for Approval and Designation as Gaikokuho-Jimu-Bengoshi — https://www.moj.go.jp/housei/gaiben/housei07_00028.html

18. HCCH — 1965 Service Convention — https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=17

19. SAKURA Law Office — Official Website — https://sakura-lawyers.jp/en/

20. SAKURA Law Office — Kenshiro Michishita, Managing Partner — https://sakura-lawyers.jp/en/lawyer/michishita-kenshiro/

Disclaimer

This article provides general information based on Japanese laws, court materials and other official sources publicly available as of October 5, 2026. It does not constitute legal advice or a legal opinion concerning any particular dispute. International jurisdiction, forum selection, arbitration agreements, governing law, corporate authority, service, security for costs, evidence, provisional remedies, limitation issues, damages, appeals, enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments depend on the contract, parties, location of evidence and assets, nature of the claim, applicable treaties and other specific facts. The May 2026 digitalization of ordinary civil litigation does not apply uniformly to every provisional-remedy and enforcement procedure. Specific matters should therefore be assessed under the statutes, court rules, court practice and treaties in force when the proceeding is commenced.