## Facts

- An American corporation sued a Japanese citizen in Hawaii state court for damages.
- The defendant resided in Japan and was served in Japan by mail with the summons/complaint and related papers.
- The served documents were in English only; no Japanese translation was provided.
- The defendant had studied English for years and was described as well educated.
- The defendant did not appear in the Hawaii action, and the Hawaii court entered a default judgment for the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff brought proceedings in the Tokyo District Court seeking recognition and enforcement of the Hawaii default judgment against the defendant’s assets in Japan.
- The defendant opposed recognition, contending that the method and content of service failed to satisfy Japanese requirements for recognizing a foreign judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether a Hawaii default judgment could be recognized and enforced in Japan when the defendant in Japan was served by mail with English-only documents and no Japanese translation.
2. Whether enforcement would be barred because the defendant lacked a fair opportunity to understand the proceedings and defend, notwithstanding the defendant’s English study and education.
3. Whether the service defect (method and language) implicated the “proper service” condition and/or the public-policy condition for recognition of foreign judgments under Japanese civil procedure rules then in force.

## Decision

- The Tokyo District Court denied recognition and enforcement of the Hawaii default judgment.
- The court treated service as insufficient for recognition purposes where the defendant in Japan was served by mail with English-only legal documents and no translation.
- The defendant’s general education and prior English study did not, without more, cure the lack of an intelligible notice adequate to support a default judgment’s enforcement in Japan.

## Legal Principles

- Recognition of a foreign judgment in Japan requires that the defendant have been properly served (or have appeared) and that recognition not violate public policy.
- For default judgments, Japanese courts scrutinize whether service provided a realistic, fair opportunity to understand the claim and respond; formal compliance abroad may be inadequate if notice is practically unintelligible.
- Foreign-language service on a Japan-resident defendant, without translation, may be treated as inconsistent with fundamental fairness in civil procedure, supporting refusal of recognition.
- A defendant’s general ability to study or use a foreign language does not automatically establish comprehension of the legal significance of pleadings sufficient to justify enforcing a default judgment.

## Conclusion

The court refused to enforce a Hawaii default judgment in Japan because mailed service in Japan using English-only documents without translation did not satisfy Japan’s recognition requirements, and the defendant’s English education did not establish that the defendant had a fair opportunity to defend.


Hiroko Saeki Inc. v. Ozaki, Kin’yu-Shōji Hanrei (No. 857) 39 (Tokyo Dist. Ct. 1990)