Judgment of 30 May 1994
Tokyo High Court
XX Y.B. Comm. Arb. 745 (1995)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
The Japanese Education Corporation (JEC) (plaintiff) and Ringling Bros. (Ringling) (defendant) entered an agreement for Ringling to organize circus performances in Japan. The agreement contained an arbitration clause referring all disputes to International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration in either New York or Tokyo. The arbitration agreement also provided that the place of arbitration would be the country of the party against which arbitration is initiated. The parties later had a dispute, and JEC sought damages in the District Court of Tokyo. JEC alleged the Ringling representative deceived JEC as to certain financial matters contained in the parties’ contract. In November 1990, Ringling obtained an injunction order from the U.S. District Court, enjoining JEC from proceeding with the lawsuit in Tokyo District Court. The U.S. District Court also ordered the parties to proceed with arbitration under the ICC Rules in Japan as dictated by the arbitration clause. JEC did not participate in the proceedings in the American courts and continued its suit in the Tokyo District Court. The Tokyo District Court ordered the parties to begin arbitration. JEC appealed to the High Court of Tokyo, arguing that the arbitration clause was null and void because it failed to indicate the competent arbitral institution in Japan. Ringling argued that the existence of the arbitration agreement barred any court proceedings in either America or Japan under the American Federal Arbitration Act and the Japanese Code of Civil Procedure.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.