## Facts

- An aircraft operated by Aviaco Airlines (Aviaco) and an aircraft operated by Iberia Airlines (Iberia) collided at an airport in Spain, killing passengers on both aircraft.
- The heirs of Japanese passengers who died on the Iberia aircraft filed a damages action in Japan against both Iberia and Aviaco.
- Iberia maintained offices and conducted business in Japan.
- Aviaco was based in Spain and conducted no business in Japan and maintained no offices there.
- Aviaco objected to the Japanese court’s exercise of international jurisdiction, arguing it would be unfair and burdensome to require Aviaco to litigate in Japan given its lack of presence there.
- The reported decision is a Tokyo District Court ruling addressing Aviaco’s jurisdictional objection as a preliminary matter.

## Issues

1. May a Japanese court exercise international civil jurisdiction over a foreign airline with no business presence in Japan for tort claims arising from an air accident in Spain, where a co-defendant airline is present in Japan and the claims arise from the same occurrence?
2. Should jurisdiction be denied as unfair or excessively burdensome to the foreign defendant under the circumstances?

## Decision

- The Tokyo District Court rejected Aviaco’s jurisdictional objection.
- The court held that Japanese courts could exercise international jurisdiction over Aviaco in this action, allowing the claims against Aviaco to proceed in Japan.
- The ruling addressed jurisdiction only and did not resolve the merits of liability for the collision.

## Legal Principles

- In determining international civil jurisdiction, Japanese courts look to domestic venue concepts by analogy and then assess whether exercising jurisdiction is reasonable in the particular cross-border setting.
- Even when a foreign defendant lacks offices or business activity in Japan, jurisdiction may be found where the dispute has meaningful links to Japan and hearing the case in Japan is not materially unjust to the defendant.
- In a multi-defendant case arising from a single accident, the presence of a closely connected co-defendant in Japan can support hearing the related claims together in Japan to avoid parallel proceedings and inconsistent outcomes.
- Claims by Japanese plaintiffs (including heirs) and the practical burden of litigating abroad may be weighed against the foreign defendant’s litigation burden when deciding whether asserting jurisdiction would be unfair.

## Conclusion

*Inoue v. Aviaco Airlines* is a Tokyo District Court decision holding that Japan could hear Japanese heirs’ tort claims arising from a Spain airport collision against Aviaco, even though Aviaco had no business presence in Japan, where the action was also brought against Iberia (which was present in Japan) and the court found the overall balance did not make jurisdiction over Aviaco unjust.


Inoue v. Aviaco Airlines, Hanrei Jihō (No. 1232) 40 (1988)