I. Introduction
International household regulation choices will be acknowledged, and the place mandatory, enforced in Japan in the event that they meet the prescribed necessities for this function. Previous to 2018, it was an set up apply to use the identical recognition and enforcement regime used for civil and industrial issues to international household regulation choices. Nevertheless, discussions existed in literature concerning whether or not constitutive household regulation judgments and decrees ought to be acknowledged following the selection of regulation strategy, or whether or not the particular traits of international household regulation choices would possibly justify exceptions, such because the non-application of sure recognition necessities (see Mario Takeshita, “The Recognition of International Judgments by Japanese Courts” 39 Japanese Annual of Worldwide Regulation (1996) 59-61).
Since 2018, the relevant regime has been considerably clarified, successfully placing an finish to a lot of the prior tutorial debate on the topic. This growth stems from the introduction of recent provisions on the popularity and enforcement of international household regulation choices within the Act No. 20 of 2018, which amends the procedural acts relevant to household regulation instances as will probably be define under (English translation will be present in 62 Japanese Yearbook of Worldwide Regulation (2019) 486. See additionally Prof. Yasuhiro Okuda’s translation in 50 ZJapanR/J. Japan.L (2020) 235).
This Act, which got here into pressure on 1 April 2019, additionally introduces new detailed guidelines on worldwide jurisdictional in household regulation disputes (for particulars, see Yuko Nishitani, “New Worldwide Civil Process Regulation of Japan in Standing and Household Issues” 62 Japanese Yearbook of Worldwide Regulation (2019) 141; Yasuhiro Okuda, New Guidelines on Worldwide Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts in Household Issues, 50 ZJapanR/J. Japan.L (2020) 217).
Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that, within the context of the popularity and enforcement of international household regulation choices, a number of points stay open. As well as, for the reason that entry into pressure of the brand new regulation, there have been comparatively few reported instances that present clear steerage on the appliance of the authorized framework. On this respect, the Chiba District Courtroom’s judgment of 19 July 2024 offered right here, regarding the enforcement of a Singaporean divorce judgment part ordering the fee of kid residing bills, provides useful insights.
II. Information
The case issues X’s (ex-wife, Plaintiff) request for an enforcement judgment underneath Article 24 of the Civil Enforcement Act (CEA) to implement a portion of a Singaporean judgment rendered in November 2010, requiring the Y (ex-husband, the Defendant) to pay, inter alia, residing bills for 2 of their three kids till they reached the age of majority, together with accrued curiosity. X initiated the enforcement motion in 2019. By the point of the motion, one youngster had already attained the age of majority underneath Singaporean regulation (21 years), whereas the opposite reached the age of majority in the course of the pendency of the case.
The events within the case married in Japan within the early Nineties, the place they lived and had two sons. In 1997, the Y relocated to Singapore, adopted by the remainder of the household in 1998. Whereas residing in Singapore, they’d their third youngster, a daughter. In March 2007, X initiated divorce proceedings earlier than Singaporean courts, with Y taking part by appointing authorized counsel and responding to the proceedings.
In accordance with Singapore’s two-step divorce course of, the courtroom issued a provisional judgment in October 2008 dissolving the wedding. The courtroom then proceeded to deal with ancillary issues, together with custody, guardianship, visitation, residing bills, and the division of joint belongings. Throughout these proceedings, Y completely left Singapore and returned to Japan in June 2010. Following his departure, Y ceased to take part within the proceedings, and his authorized counsel was subsequently granted permission to withdraw from representing him.
In November 2010, the Singaporean courtroom issued a last judgment granting X sole custody and guardianship of the youngsters, ordering the fee of residing bills, and dividing the couple’s joint belongings. Previous to the listening to, a discover was despatched to Y’s final identified deal with, which he had offered in the course of the proceedings. Nevertheless, the judgment, in addition to the summons for enchantment, was not served on Y, resulting in the expiration of the enchantment interval with out the judgment being challenged.
In 2019, X sought enforcement of the Singaporean judgment as indicated above. Earlier than the Courtroom, the events disputed many of the recognition necessities (article 118 of the Code of Civil Process [CCP]). Y additionally challenged enforcement by elevating a protection primarily based on the existence of a floor for an objection towards civil execution, notably the truth that the limitation interval for the claims associated to the fee of residing bills underneath the international judgment had expired. Lastly, Y argued that X’s request to implement the international judgment constituted an abuse of proper or a violation of the precept of excellent religion.
III. Ruling
In its judgment rendered on 19 July 2024, the Chiba District Courtroom largely dismissed Y’s arguments and granted X’s software, with two exceptions: the courtroom rejected X’s declare for residing bills declare for the youngsters past the age of 21. It didn’t additionally enable the enforcement of the portion of accrued curiosity on the residing bills, which the Courtroom discovered to be extinguished underneath Singaporean statute of limitations.
Earlier than addressing every of the problems raised, the courtroom first outlined the overall relevant ideas, citing related Supreme Courtroom instances the place accessible. Though these elements are essential, they are going to be omitted from the abstract for brevity.
1. Whether or not the international judgment will be deemed last [Article 118, first sentence of the CCP]
Based on the courtroom, underneath Singaporean regulation, a judgment turns into efficient on the date it’s issued, and an enchantment have to be filed inside 28 days from the judgment date, no matter whether or not the judgment is served. The courtroom noticed that since no summons for an enchantment was served inside this era, the international judgment ought to be deemed last.
2. Whether or not the international courtroom had jurisdiction [Article 118(1) of the CCP]
The courtroom first famous that the international lawsuit concerned X searching for divorce and addressing ancillary issues with Y. The courtroom, then categorized the case as “private standing” case, and assessed the oblique jurisdiction of the international courtroom by reference to the Japanese guidelines of direct jurisdiction in private standing instances as set out within the Private Standing Litigation Act (PSLA), article 3-2 et seq. For the courtroom, article 3-2(i) of the PSLA permits that an motion regarding private standing be filed with the Japanese courts when the defendant has domicile in Japan, and that jurisdiction is decided on the time the lawsuit is filed (article 3-12 of the CCP). Making use of this take a look at to the case, the courtroom discovered that, on the time the international continuing was initiated, each events have been domiciled in Singapore, and concluded that the Singaporean courtroom had jurisdiction over the matter. Moreover, the courtroom thought-about that there have been no circumstances suggesting that it might be unreasonable, on the idea of the precept of jori (naturalis ratio), to acknowledge the international judgment issued by the international courtroom.
3. Whether or not the process resulting in the international judgment violates public coverage (the dearth of service of the international judgment on Y) [Article 118(3) of the CCP]
The courtroom admitted that the international judgment was not served on Y, and that he was not conscious of it throughout the enchantment interval. Nevertheless, the courtroom decided that, primarily based on Y’s conduct in the course of the proceedings, he had voluntarily waived his proper to be told of the judgment’s issuance. Based on the courtroom, Y knew a judgment on ancillary issues could be delivered and had the chance to obtain it by way of correct procedures. The courtroom additionally discovered that, whereas Y was not conscious of the judgment throughout the enchantment interval, he had been given procedural safeguards and ample alternative to develop into knowledgeable. Subsequently, the courtroom concluded that the dearth of service of the international judgment didn’t violate the elemental ideas of Japanese procedural public coverage.
4. Whether or not the content material of the international judgment violates [substantive] public coverage (the quantity of residing bills for the youngsters) [Article 118(3) of the CCP]
The courtroom held that the international judgment’s calculation of the youngsters’s residing bills was primarily based on an inexpensive analysis of the events’ monetary capability, rejecting Y’s argument that the calculation was unrelated to his monetary scenario or had punitive parts. The courtroom additional acknowledged that the quantity stipulated within the international judgment was not extreme or inconsistent with Japanese public coverage, given the precise residing bills of the youngsters. Furthermore, the courtroom emphasised that Y’s problem, primarily based on his decreased or absent revenue was not accepted by the international courtroom, would represent a prohibited overview of the deserves underneath Article 24(4) of the CEA.
5. Whether or not reciprocity is established (Artwork. 1118(4) of the CCP)
For the courtroom, the necessities for recognizing a international judgment in Singapore are primarily based on English widespread regulation, which broadly aligns with the situations outlined in Article 118 of the CCP. Thus, the courtroom decided that reciprocity exists between Singapore and Japan.
6. The applicability of the statute of limitations on the declare for residing bills underneath the international judgment
The courtroom confirmed that the occasion opposing enforcement of a international judgment might elevate within the exequatur proceedings defenses primarily based on the extinction or modification of claims that occurred after the judgment was rendered. The courtroom then decided that Singaporean regulation was relevant to the protection of extinctive prescription. Thereafter, the courtroom in contrast the Singaporean limitation durations (12 years for claims primarily based on the judgment and 6 years for curiosity) with Japan’s shorter durations (5 years or 10 years for claims confirmed by a last judgment). The courtroom discovered that making use of Singapore’s longer limitation durations didn’t manifestly violate Japan’s public coverage, upholding the validity of residing expense claims filed throughout the 12-year interval. Nevertheless, it dominated that curiosity claims accrued earlier than October 2013 had been extinguished because of the expiration of the 6-year limitation interval.
7. Abuse of Rights or Violation of the Precept of Good Religion
The courtroom addressed Y’s argument that X’s try and implement the international judgment constitutes an abuse of rights or a violation of excellent religion. The courtroom rejected this declare, stating that imposing a judgment in accordance with the regulation doesn’t breach the precept of excellent religion or represent an abuse of rights. As well as, the courtroom discovered no proof to help Y’s argument.
IV. Feedback
1. Significance of the Case
The Chiba District Courtroom judgment of 19 July 2024 is important for its remedy of varied points regarding the recognition and enforcement of international household regulation choices underneath the brand new authorized framework. The courtroom addressed key points corresponding to oblique jurisdiction, procedural and substantive public coverage, reciprocity, and the flexibility to boost defenses in the course of the exequatur course of, together with objections primarily based on the expiration of limitation durations and the consistency of international regulation with Japanese public coverage. Most of those points are topic of ongoing tutorial dialogue in Japan (for an outline, see Manabu Iwamoto, “Recognition and Enforcement of International Selections on Private Standing Litigation and Household Relations Circumstances” 62 Japanese Yearbook of Worldwide Regulation (2019) 226).
2. Private Standing Circumstances v. Home Relations Circumstances
Japan’s authorized framework for recognizing international judgments typically is ruled primarily by home regulation. So far as international household regulation choices are involved, it’s usually admitted that their recognition and enforcement rely upon whether or not the household regulation relationship is classed as a “private standing case” or a “home relations instances.”
“Private standing instances” usually embody “contentious” household regulation disputes regarding marital or parental relationships, corresponding to divorce, which is a quintessential instance of a “private standing case”. Household regulation issues on this class, as decided by article 2 of the Private Standing Litigation Act (PSLA), are ruled by its provisions. Given the constitutive nature, international judgments on private standing instances usually don’t require enforcement.
However, “home relations instances” teams household issues which can be usually “non-contentious”, though sure instances, corresponding to claims for custody or upkeep, will be extremely adversarial. These issues are ruled Home Relations Case Process Act (DRCPA), which incorporates appended tables itemizing instances categorized as home relations instances. In contrast to private standing instances, some sorts of home relations instances could contain parts that require enforcement, such because the fee of upkeep or the return of a kid.
From the attitude of Japanese regulation, upkeep instances usually fall underneath this class (see Manabu Iwamoto, “Worldwide Restoration of Upkeep in Japan” 65 Japanese Yearbook of Worldwide Regulation (2022) 254).
3. Relevant authorized regime
On this regard, the 2018 reform introduced some important adjustments. Certainly, a brand new provision was launched within the DRCPA (new article 79-2) and article 24 of the CEA on the enforcement of international judgments was modified to accommodate these adjustments. Nevertheless, no comparable provision was launched within the PSLA, because it was thought-about that contentious judgments in household regulation issues usually are not totally different from contentious judgments in civil and industrial issues, subsequently, they need to be topic to the identical authorized regime.
Accordingly, relying on the kind of case concerned, international household regulation choices will be acknowledged both (i) by direct software of article 118 of the CCP, when the international judgment in query pertains to “private standing instances”, or (ii) by mutatis mutandis software of article 118 of the CCP pursuant to article 79-2 of the DRCPA, when the international determination is rendered in a matter regarding “home relations instances”. The principle distinction between these two approaches is that, not like international private standing judgments, the necessities of article 118 of the CCP would absolutely apply mutatis mutandis to international home relations choices, offered that doing so “shouldn’t be opposite to the character” of the choice in query (article 79-2 of the DRCPA). In different phrases, for international home relations choices, the necessities of article 118 of the CCP could apply partially, relying on the character of the case.
On this context, since upkeep judgments is usually categorized underneath “home relations instances”, their recognition is, as a matter of precept, ruled by article 79-2 of the DRCPA, together with the mutatis mutandis software of the necessities of article 118 of the CCP. Whether or not recognition and enforcement of international upkeep judgments is topic to full or partial software of the popularity necessities underneath article 118 of the CCP is topic to dialogue in literature. Nevertheless, the overall tendency amongst courts, as confirmed by the case offered right here, is to use all the popularity necessities.
4. Conjunction between private standing instances and home relations instances
A key problem arises, nevertheless, when a international household regulation judgment combines parts of private standing (e.g., divorce) with points categorized underneath home relations (e.g., youngster custody or upkeep). On this regard, whereas the Chiba District Courtroom handled the international judgment as a single “private standing case” and utilized article 118 of the CCP, regardless of Article 79-2 of the DRCPA, prevailing literature and case regulation counsel that every side ought to be handled individually.
Following this strategy, the courtroom ought to have proceeded as follows: first, it ought to have categorized the courtroom order to pay youngster residing bills as pertaining to “home relations instances”. Below this categorization, the courtroom would then have wanted to evaluate, pursuant to article 79-2 of the DRCPA, whether or not all the popularity necessities of article 118 of the CCP ought to apply mutatis mutandis, or solely partially, relying on the character of the case. Lastly, the courtroom ought to have reviewed the oblique jurisdiction of the international courtroom by reference to the jurisdictional guidelines set out within the DRCPA (particularly, article 3-10, which governs instances regarding upkeep obligation), relatively than these set out within the PSLA.
That mentioned, it must be acknowledged, that the courtroom’s final conclusion would doubtless not have modified for the reason that jurisdiction of the international courtroom would even have been justified by the jurisdictional guidelines included within the PSLA, which permit actions for ancillary measures, together with youngster custody and help, to be determined by the courtroom exercising divorce jurisdiction (article 3-4 of the PSLA).
