![]() ![]() Secondly, it is a significant change given the absence of an equivalent power where a party ignores an interim prohibitory injunction granted by the Japanese courts First, such a power goes beyond the contents of the UNCITRAL Model Law 2006. This provision is particularly noteworthy for two reasons. In addition, the Ministry of Justice’s proposals include empowering the Japanese court to order payment of a penalty fee where a party breaches an interim prohibitory injunction granted by a tribunal. the enforcement by the Japanese courts of interim measures granted by arbitral tribunals and limited grounds for refusing enforcement.the termination or modification of interim measures and.requirements that tribunals can impose before granting interim measures such as the provision of security.clarifying the types of interim measures that can be granted by tribunals including, specifically, orders to maintain or restore the status quo of the subject-matter of the dispute (such as freezing orders), orders to preserve property necessary for the realisation of an arbitral award and orders to preserve evidence.The proposals largely reflect the integration into Japanese law of the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law 2006. In late October 2021, the Japanese Ministry of Justice’s Legislative Council outlined its proposals to amend Japan’s Arbitration Act (Act No. Upcoming changes to the arbitration legislative framework in Japan ![]() However, more changes are still on the horizon including important changes to the Japanese legislative framework governing arbitrations seated in Japan as well as legislation designed to promote Japan’s attractiveness as a centre for mediation. Some of these changes include the updating by the JCAA of its institutional rules and other practices, the successful launch of the Japan International Dispute Resolution Center (“ JIDRC“) and the opening of the Japan International Mediation Center in Kyoto. The HKIAC and SIAC remain popular institutions in the region for Japanese parties to resolve their disputes with recent annual reports showing an increase in cases involving Japanese parties. 86% of the case load of Japan Commercial Arbitration Association (JCAA) from 2017 to 2021 involved international cases although overall case numbers remained largely static in 20 with an average of around 17 cases per year. Sophisticated Japanese corporations with significant overseas business are comfortable using international arbitration and mediation as methods of dispute resolution. In that time, Japan has evolved into a significant market for cross-border contentious legal matters. The dispute resolution landscape in Japan is almost unrecognisable from the position 20 years ago.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |