In Japan, a party seeking to enforce a judgment or arbitral award (referred to hereafter as the “enforcing party”) may try and locate the other party’s assets (this article will refer to the party that is required to act in a judgment or arbitral award as the “responding party”). The enforcing party generally has two principal court-supervised mechanisms available to locate the responding party’s assets:

• a procedure requiring the responding party to disclose the assets; and
• court orders requiring certain third parties, including financial institutions, certain government agencies, and employers, provide asset-related information about the responding party.

Both mechanisms are limited to monetary claims. They also become available only after the enforcing party has obtained an enforceable title. In the context of a foreign judgment or arbitral award, this means either: (i) a Japanese court judgment permitting enforcement of the foreign judgment; or (ii) a Japanese court order permitting enforcement of the foreign arbitral award.

Debtor Asset Disclosure Procedure

When enforcing a foreign judgment or an arbitral award in Japan, the enforcing party may ask the court to convene a hearing at which the responding party must disclose their assets under oath. The assets subject to disclosure may include deposit accounts, receivables, real estate, and wage or salary claims.

To use this procedure, the enforcing party must show that the responding party does not own sufficient assets to satisfy the judgment or award in full. Courts do not require rigorous proof of this point.

If the responding party, without justifiable grounds, fails to appear at the hearing, refuses to answer questions, or makes statements that are plainly false, the court may impose criminal sanctions. The sanctions may include imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of up to JPY500,000. In practice, however, courts almost never impose imprisonment in connection with this procedure.

The practical value of the asset disclosure procedure often depends on the responding party’s willingness to cooperate. It may be of limited use where the responding party is determined to hide assets, particularly because the available sanctions are not particularly severe.

Court Orders Requiring Disclosure by Third Parties

The enforcing party may also seek a court order requiring a third party to disclose information about the responding party’s assets. The requirements differ depending on the type of asset involved.

• Bank deposits: The enforcing party may seek an order against a bank without first using the asset disclosure procedure. The order may require the bank to state whether the responding party holds any deposit accounts with that bank. If accounts exist, the bank must disclose the relevant branch, the account type, the account number, and the account balance.
• Real estate: For real property, the enforcing party must first attempt to use the asset disclosure procedure before seeking a third-party disclosure order. A third-party disclosure order may require the relevant legal affairs bureau to disclose: (i) whether the responding party is registered as the owner of any real property; and (ii) if so, to provide information sufficient to identify that real property. This differs from an ordinary search of Japan’s real estate registry. In an ordinary search of the real property registry, the legal affairs bureau will provide the requested information only if the enforcing party already knows the address or location of the real property in question. In other words, the enforcing party cannot find out what real property a certain individual or entity owns if the enforcing party has only the name of that individual or entity without an accompanying address. As a result, a third-party disclosure order can be an effective means of identifying real property that the enforcing party did not previously know the responding party owned.

• Salary or wages: The enforcing party may obtain a court order requiring a municipality, the Japan Pension Service or a mutual aid association to disclose whether the responding party receives salary or wages. If so, the order may also require disclosure of the name and address of the person or entity that pays the responding party that salary or wages. The enforcing party must first attempt to use the asset disclosure procedure before seeking this type of order. This procedure is available only to an enforcing party seeking to enforce an order requiring the responding party to pay: (i) child support; (ii) spousal support; or (iii) damages arising from a wrongful death or personal injury suit.
• Sanctions for third parties: Although banks, employers and similar third parties have a legal duty to cooperate, Japanese law does not impose criminal penalties on them for failing to respond to these disclosure orders.

The enforcing party may also consider using the inquiry procedure available through one of Japan’s bar associations under the Attorney Act. Under this procedure, a Japanese attorney may request that a local bar association make inquiries to third parties (such as banks or public registries) for information relevant to locating the responding party’s assets. In practice, enforcing parties commonly use this procedure, which can serve as a useful supplement to the court-based asset investigation tools.

Japanese civil judgments can be either interlocutory judgments or final judgments.

An interlocutory judgment decides an issue that arises during the proceedings prior to the court issuing its final judgment. For example, in cases that involve a dispute about both liability and the amount of damages, the court may first determine liability in an interlocutory judgment and then later address the amount of damages. An interlocutory judgment does not itself bring the proceedings to an end.

There are three categories of final judgments:

• Judgments requiring performance: These require a party to take a particular action or refrain from taking a particular action. Examples include judgments that order a party to pay a certain amount of monetary compensation, to vacate a building, or to refrain from selling products that infringe a patent. Of the three categories of judgments, this is the only type that an enforcing party can have a Japanese court enforce.
• Declaratory judgments: Declaratory judgments determine whether a right or legal relationship exists (or does not exist) between the parties. For example, a court may declare that a particular person owns a parcel of land. However, a declaratory judgment does not itself require a party to take (or refrain from taking) any specific action in connection with that parcel. For this reason, an enforcing party may not rely on Japan’s court system to enforce declaratory judgments.
• Judgments that create, modify, or terminate a legal relationship. Japan has a classification of judgments that create, modify, or terminate a legal relationship due solely to the legal effect of the judgment itself. An example is a judgment that nullifies a shareholder resolution that purports to appoint a director. Once the judgment becomes final and binding, it voids the shareholder resolution, which effectively results in the termination of the legal relationship between the company and the now-former director. This change occurs without the need for a party to separately enforce the judgment.

Unlike with a foreign judgment or an arbitral award, an enforcing party seeking to enforce a final and binding domestic judgment will not need to obtain a separate court decision to do so. Instead, the enforcing party must submit an authenticated copy of the judgment together with evidence that the responding party has been served with the judgment. An enforcing party may also enforce a judgment that is not yet final if the court declares in that judgment that the judgment is provisionally enforceable.

Enforcement of Monetary Claims

An enforcing party may enforce a judgment that orders the responding party to make a monetary payment by seizing the responding party’s assets. The principal methods of seizing the responding party’s assets are as follows.

• Attaching money and other financial assets: An enforcing party may seek a court order against a third party that attaches the responding party’s financial assets such as bank deposits, salary or wages, accounts receivable and rent that the responding party is entitled to receive. If the enforcing party is successful, the third party is prohibited from paying the attached amount to the responding party. Moreover, the enforcing party may generally collect the attached amount directly from the third party.
• Seizing real property: The court may seize the responding party’s real property and sell it through a court-sanctioned auction. After the sale is complete, the enforcing party will receive their share of the proceeds along with the other participating creditors.
• Seizing movable property: The court may seize and sell the responding party’s movable property and apply the proceeds to satisfy the judgment. However, Japanese law exempts certain household necessities and other assets from seizure.
• Attachment of shares and other property rights: An enforcing party may attach the responding party’s shares of stock and certain other transferable property rights as part of an action to enforce a domestic judgment.

Enforcement of Non-Monetary Obligations

The process of enforcing a non-monetary judgment depends on the nature of the obligation.

• Delivery of property or surrender of premises: The court may directly enforce a judgment that requires the responding party to deliver movable property or to vacate and surrender real property.
• Obligations that another person or entity may be able to perform: In some cases, a person or entity may be able to perform the required action instead of the responding party. In those cases, the court may authorise a third party or the enforcing party to perform the required action at the responding party’s expense. Common examples of these actions include demolishing a building or other structure, removing an object or structure that the responding party is required to remove, and carrying out repair or restoration work that the responding party has been ordered to perform.
• Obligations that only the responding party can perform: If only the responding party can perform a certain obligation, the court may order that party to pay the enforcing party a specific amount if they fail to perform the required action within a stated period of time.
• Obligations prohibiting a particular action: An enforcing party may generally enforce an injunction or other judgment requiring the responding party to refrain from specified conduct. Depending on the circumstances, the court may also authorise measures to remove or reverse the consequences of a breach at the responding party’s expense.
• Insolvency proceedings are separate from these individual enforcement procedures: An enforcing party may submit its claim in the insolvency proceedings against the responding party, assuming of course that the enforcing party can satisfy the relevant insolvency requirements under Japanese law. Once bankruptcy, civil rehabilitation or corporate reorganisation proceedings begin, the court may stay, prohibit, or otherwise restrict any individual enforcement action that the enforcing party may have taken against the responding party.

The time and cost required to enforce a domestic judgment will depend mainly on the type of asset involved.

Generally, the quickest and least expensive method is to attach certain items such as the responding party’s bank deposits, accounts receivable, salary or rent to be received from their rental property. The court filing fee is usually JPY4,000 plus relatively modest postal and document-related costs. Once the court has served the responding party with the order, the enforcing party will typically receive attached, non-salary/non-wage assets about one week later. (Note that, in Japan, it is the responsibility of the court to serve court documents; the parties themselves do not serve (or arrange to serve) these.) By contrast, it generally takes around four weeks for an enforcing party to receive attached salary or wages. The total time between the court attaching the asset and the enforcing party receiving that asset can vary depending on the court and when the court is able to serve the order.

By contrast, it is substantially more expensive and time-consuming to use the other party’s real property to satisfy a judgment. In addition to the JPY4,000 filing fee, the enforcing party must pay an advance to cover expenses such as the required inspection of the property, the appraisal, and the sale of the property. The amount of the advance will vary depending on the court and the circumstances of the case. However, an initial advance can range from about JPY700,000 to JPY2 million. The enforcing party must also pay a registration and licence tax, which – based on the statutory calculation – generally comes out to 0.4% of the amount of the enforceable claim.

It takes time to inspect, appraise, advertise, and sell the property through a court-administered auction. Enforcement can therefore take many months and, in some cases, more than a year.

Accordingly, if the enforcing party can identify the responding party’s bank accounts or other appropriate receivables, attaching that asset is generally the most efficient method of enforcing a monetary judgment. Using real property to satisfy a judgment may be appropriate for a substantial claim, but doing so involves higher upfront costs and usually takes much longer. The enforcing party may also use the responding party’s movable property to satisfy a judgment, but the often-modest value of movable property makes this a less attractive option.

As discussed in 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position, the enforcing party may use the asset disclosure procedure or seek court orders requiring certain third parties to provide information about the responding party’s assets. The applicable requirements and limitations are also set out in 1.1 Options to Identify Another Party’s Asset Position.

A responding party generally cannot prevent enforcement of a final and binding judgment by citing defects in the original proceedings, even if those defects concern the merits of the case or procedural matters. A responding party must instead generally raise any challenges through an appeal or other procedure directed against the judgment itself, rather than during the enforcement proceedings.

The responding party may, however, challenge enforcement based on circumstances that arose after the conclusion of the oral proceedings on which the judgment was based. For example, if the responding party has paid part of the judgment after the conclusion of those oral proceedings, they may bring an action seeking to prevent enforcement of the full judgment amount. To illustrate this, if the judgment requires the responding party to pay JPY1 million and the responding party pays JPY250,000 of that amount after the conclusion of the oral proceedings, the responding party may take action to have the court reduce the judgment amount to JPY750,000.

If enforcement is based on a judgment that the court has declared the enforcing party may provisionally enforce, the responding party may appeal the judgment and seek a temporary stay of enforcement. Filing an appeal does not itself automatically stay enforcement; the responding party must instead obtain a separate court order.

As discussed above in 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments, the enforcing party may generally only execute a judgment that orders performance. By contrast, the enforcing party cannot execute a declaratory judgment because declaratory judgments do not order either party to take (or refrain from taking) any action. Although not “unenforceable” per se, judgments that create, modify, or terminate a legal relationship (as described in 2.1 Types of Domestic Judgments) do not need to be executed because the legal relationship is changed by the judgment itself once that judgment becomes final and binding.

Japan has no central register containing all domestic judgments or outstanding judgments. It is true that Japanese courts publish selected decisions in an online case-law database. However, that database does not contain every judgment. Moreover, it is not possible to remove a judgment from the database even after the judgment is satisfied.

Japan does not currently participate in any treaty or convention that directly governs the recognition or enforcement of foreign court judgments. This includes the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. As a result, Japanese domestic law controls the recognition and enforcement process in Japan.

The key statutory provisions are Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act. Article 118 sets out the conditions that a foreign judgment must satisfy before a Japanese court will recognise that judgment. Article 24 of the Civil Execution Act sets forth the procedure for obtaining an execution judgment. An enforcing party must obtain this execution judgment before it can enforce the foreign judgment in Japan.

Although no treaty directly controls enforcement, the Hague Service Convention can, in practice, play an important role. Proper service of process is one of the issues Japanese courts consider when deciding whether to recognise a foreign judgment. Japan is a party to the 1965 Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. This convention establishes a Central Authority mechanism for service abroad, which, for the purposes of this guide, means service on a defendant in Japan.

Japan also objected in December 2018 to service under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention, which concerns service by postal channels. Accordingly, where a party from a contracting state outside Japan must serve documents on a party in Japan, the serving party should generally use Japan’s Central Authority (the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) rather than direct postal service, unless another applicable treaty or arrangement permits a different method.

Japan does not have different approaches to enforcement depending on the type of judgment.

Foreign judgments are not generally excluded from recognition and enforcement merely because they fall within a particular category. Instead, a Japanese court will assess each judgment against the requirements of Article 118 of Japan’s Code of Civil Procedure, including the requirement that the judgment be final and binding.

Japan recognises foreign judgments that satisfy the following requirements.

• Finality: The judgment must be final and binding in the country of origin. In this connection, “final and binding” means: (i) that the highest court in the foreign jurisdiction has ruled on the matter; or (ii) that the losing party failed to pursue the foreign court’s appeals process and the deadline for doing so has passed. Japan will generally not enforce foreign provisional remedies, including:
1. temporary restraining orders;
2. preliminary or temporary injunctions;
3. provisional attachments and orders that freeze assets; and
4. other measures that merely preserve a party’s position until the court can make a final determination.
• Jurisdiction: The foreign court must have had jurisdiction on grounds acceptable under Japanese principles of international jurisdiction as set forth under Articles 3-2 to 3-12 of the Code of Civil Procedure (such as jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile/habitual residence, the place where the defendant performed a contract, or the defendant’s consent to the foreign court’s jurisdiction).
• Proper service or voluntary appearance: The defendant must have received proper service of the complaint and summons or must have appeared in court and mounted a defence without such service. Japanese courts will often refuse to recognise a judgment when the plaintiff effectuates service by:
1. directly hand-delivering the required documents outside the methods set forth in the Hague Service Convention; or
2. directly mailing the documents through the postal service.
• Public policy: The judgment and the underlying proceedings must not violate Japanese public policy. The following are some public policy-related examples under Japanese case law.
• In domestic litigation, Japanese courts almost never order the losing party to pay all of the prevailing party’s attorneys’ fees. Even so, Japanese case law has established that a judgment that orders the losing party to bear all of the prevailing party’s actual litigation costs (including attorneys’ fees) does not violate public policy.

• Because Japan does not recognise punitive damages, the punitive damages portion of a judgment violates Japanese public policy and is therefore unenforceable. However, the court may disregard the punitive damages portion and enforce the rest of the judgment.
• If the foreign proceedings effectively deprived a party of a meaningful opportunity to review the judgment and file an appeal, Japanese courts may treat the foreign proceedings as contrary to public policy and refuse to enforce the judgment.
• If a final and binding Japanese judgment already exists between the same parties based on the same set of facts, Japanese courts may refuse to recognise the foreign judgment if it conflicts with the Japanese judgment, as this would undermine the order of Japan’s judicial system.

Once the enforcing party has obtained a Japanese court judgment authorising enforcement of the foreign judgment, the subsequent enforcement process is the same as with a domestic Japanese judgment. Please see 2.2 Enforcement of Domestic Judgments for a summary of the available enforcement procedures for domestic Japanese judgments.

The time and cost required to enforce a foreign judgment can vary depending on the circumstances of each case, including the jurisdiction that issued the judgment. Costs specific to the enforcement of a foreign judgment may include Japanese translations of the judgment and related documents.

The court filing fee to seek a Japanese judgment authorising enforcement of a foreign judgment depends on the judgment amount. For example, the filing fee is approximately JPY50,000 where the amount of the judgment is JPY10 million and approximately JPY320,000 where the amount is JPY100 million.

As far as required time is concerned, it generally takes Japanese courts six months to two years to issue an enforcement order. The time required will depend on factors such as the complexity of the issues, the need to analyse foreign law or procedure, and whether the responding party is contesting enforcement.

As discussed in 3.4 Process of Enforcing Foreign Judgments, once the Japanese enforcement judgment becomes final and binding, the subsequent execution process is the same as that for a domestic Japanese judgment.

A responding party may oppose enforcement of the foreign judgment by arguing that the enforcing party has failed to satisfy one or more of the requirements under Article 118 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Those requirements are summarised in 3.3 Categories of Foreign Judgments Not Enforced. The Japanese court will not relitigate the merits of the foreign court’s decision. However, it may analyse the judgment itself and, if necessary, also look at the foreign proceedings that produced the judgment to determine whether enforcing the judgment would be contrary to Japanese public policy.

After the enforcing party manages to obtain a final and binding Japanese judgment authorising enforcement, the responding party cannot again raise the Article 118 requirements in the execution proceedings. However, the responding party may still challenge the execution based on the type of subsequent event discussed above in 2.5 Challenging Enforcement of Domestic Judgments.

Japan generally takes an enforcement-friendly approach to arbitral awards. It is a party to the New York Convention, and the Japanese Arbitration Act provides the principal framework for recognising and enforcing awards.

The Arbitration Act applies the same basic rules to awards made in Japan and awards made outside Japan. An arbitral award generally has the same legal effect as a final and binding Japanese court judgment. The enforcing party normally does not need to bring a separate recognition proceeding. However, the enforcing party must obtain an enforceability order from a Japanese court to use the responding party’s assets to satisfy the arbitral award.

In considering the enforcing party’s request for an enforceability order, the Japanese court will not review whether the arbitral tribunal reached the correct decision on the facts or the law. Instead, it will refuse to recognise or enforce an arbitral award only on limited statutory grounds, which are broadly consistent with the New York Convention. See 4.4 Process of Enforcing Arbitral Awards and 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards for more detail on the enforcement procedure and the available grounds for a challenge.

Assuming the arbitral award is enforceable, Japan’s approach to enforcement does not vary depending on the type of award.

Apart from the factors discussed in 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards that a responding party may rely on to challenge an arbitral award, there are no broad categories of arbitral awards that Japanese courts will automatically decline to enforce.

An enforcing party seeking to enforce an arbitral award in Japan will generally take the following steps.

• Confirm that the award is enforceable in Japan: Japan recognises foreign arbitral awards under the Arbitration Act, which, as noted in 4.1 Legal Issues Concerning Enforcement of Arbitral Awards, broadly follows the New York Convention. The enforcing party will therefore not normally be required to initiate a separate proceeding to have a Japanese court recognise the award. However, the enforcing party cannot proceed directly against the responding party’s assets. It must first obtain an enforcement decision from a Japanese court. The enforcing party should also commence the enforcement process within the applicable limitation period. Japanese courts are likely to apply a 10-year period to the enforcement of a foreign arbitral award.
• Select the appropriate court: The enforcing party must file a petition for an enforcement decision with a district court that has jurisdiction over the responding party or their assets. This will generally be: i) the district court for the responding party’s domicile, habitual residence, or principal office; or ii) a district court in the place where the responding party’s assets are located. The enforcing party may also file the petition with the Tokyo District Court or the Osaka District Court if the seat of arbitration was in Japan (Japan has designated these two courts to specially handle arbitration-related cases).

• File the enforcement petition and supporting documents: The enforcing party must submit the petition, the arbitral award, and the supporting material required under the Arbitration Act. The enforcing party may also need to submit Japanese translations of these documents. Following amendments to the Arbitration Act that took effect in 2024, the court may waive the requirement to provide a complete Japanese translation of the award. This is particularly helpful where the award is lengthy. The court may nevertheless require translations of relevant portions of the award or other documents that the court needs to consider the petition.
• Obtain the court’s enforcement decision: Assuming the court finds no ground for refusing enforcement, it will issue an order authorising enforcement of the award. The responding party may appeal that order by filing a notice of appeal with the district court no later than one week after service. An appeal suspends enforcement while the matter is before the High Court. A responding party may further appeal to Japan’s Supreme Court but only under extremely limited grounds.
• Seek to attach the responding party’s assets in Japan: Once the enforcement decision is effective, the enforcing party may enforce the award under the Civil Execution Act in the same manner as a Japanese court judgment. Depending on the assets available, the enforcing party may seek to:
1. attach and collect funds held in the responding party’s bank account(s);
2. attach receivables that third parties owe the responding party;
3. attach or sell shares of stock that the responding party owns;
4. have the court order the forced sale of the responding party’s real property; or
5. seize and sell the responding party’s movable property.

The enforcing party must generally identify the assets against which it wishes to enforce. If the enforcing party does not know where the responding party’s assets are located, it may use Japan’s asset-disclosure procedures or seek court orders requiring banks, governmental agencies, municipalities, and certain other third parties to provide information about the responding party’s assets. These procedures become available after the enforcing party has obtained a court order making the arbitral award enforceable.

The time and cost required for the enforcing party to enforce an arbitral award may vary depending on the circumstances of each case, including the complexity of the case and whether the other party contests enforcement.

Costs

The enforcing party must pay three separate costs to enforce an arbitral award in Japan – the court filing fee, attorneys’ fees, and, possibly, the cost of translation.

• Filing fee: At just JPY4,000, the court filing fee to enforce an arbitral award is minimal and remains the same no matter how large a recovery the arbitral award provides.
• Attorneys’ fees: Because the enforcing party needs to file the required petition with a Japanese court, they typically retain a Japanese attorney to handle this step. Of course, (i) contested cases will cost considerably more than uncontested cases; and (ii) the cost for either uncontested or contested cases can vary depending on the experience and reputation of the attorney, whether they work for a small, mid-sized, or large law firm, and whether they can communicate in English (unsurprisingly, lawyers who are able to work in English typically charge more than the average rate). Some attorneys in Japan may charge a fixed fee for uncontested cases.
• Cost of translation: Japanese courts have historically required Japanese translations of arbitral awards that are not written in Japanese. This could result in significant translator fees, especially for particularly lengthy arbitral awards. However, Japanese courts now have the discretion to waive the translation requirement, in whole or in part. However, an enforcing party should not assume that they will be able to proceed without preparing a Japanese translation. In fact, an enforcing party should: (i) assume that they will need to submit a Japanese translation; (ii) request a waiver based on that assumption; and (iii) hope the court provides a favourable response. Even if the court is amenable to the enforcing party’s request, the court will likely require at least a Japanese translation of the decision portion of the award.

Time Required

Court statistics suggest that, in about a third of cases, the enforcing party managed to enforce the award within three months. For cases that took longer, around 15% took up to six months, with 25% requiring an entire year. Only a quarter of the cases took longer than a year, including a small number (3.13%) that continued for longer than five years. Because these figures are historical, the time required in any particular case will depend largely on whether the responding party opposes enforcement.

Once the enforceability order becomes effective, the enforcing party may enforce the award in the same manner as a domestic Japanese judgment.

The grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of an arbitral award are set out in Article 45(2) of Japan’s Arbitration Act. They are largely the same as those under the UNCITRAL Model Law and the New York Convention. A Japanese court must recognise an arbitral award and issue an enforceability order unless one of the following grounds exists.

• Lack of capacity: A party lacked the legal capacity to enter into the arbitration agreement.
• Invalid arbitration agreement: The arbitration agreement was invalid under the law that the parties selected to govern the agreement or, if the parties did not select a governing law, the law of the seat of the arbitration.
• Lack of notice: A party did not receive the required notice for the appointment of an arbitrator or for the arbitration itself.
• Inability to present a case: A party was unable to present their case in the arbitration.
• Overstepping of authority: The award decided matters outside the scope of the arbitration agreement or outside the scope of the claims submitted to arbitration.
• Improper tribunal or procedure: The composition of the tribunal or the arbitration procedure did not comply with the parties’ agreement or the applicable law of the seat of arbitration.
• Award set aside, suspended, or not binding: The award has not become binding, or a competent authority in the relevant jurisdiction has set aside or suspended the award.
• Non-arbitrability: Under Japanese law, the dispute is not capable of being resolved by arbitration.
• Public policy: The terms of the award are contrary to Japanese public policy.

For all but the last two of these grounds, the party opposing recognition or enforcement bears the burden of proof. By contrast, the court may itself rely on the final two grounds to deny enforceability.

The Japanese court will not conduct a general review of whether the tribunal correctly decided the facts or the law. Instead, the court’s review will be limited to the statutory grounds discussed above. Regardless, in order to correctly apply those grounds, the court may consider the terms of the award and how the arbitration was conducted.

For an award made in Japan, a party may – no later than three months after it received notice of the award – also ask a Japanese court to set aside the award under Article 44 of Japan’s Arbitration Act. The grounds under Article 44 include: (i) the incapacity of a party or the invalidity of the arbitration agreement: (ii) inadequate notice or the inability of a party to present their case; (iii) an award that goes beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement or beyond the scope of the arbitration itself; (iv) an improperly constituted tribunal or improper arbitral process; (v) non-arbitrability of the dispute under Japanese law; and (vi) the award violating Japanese public policy.