Claims Identification

Claims Identification

Identify legal claims, defences, and remedies from factual narratives.

Trigger Conditions

• New matter intake analysis
• Client describes dispute and asks "what can I claim?"
• Reviewing facts for potential causes of action
• Ensuring no claims/defences overlooked
• Strategic case assessment

Workflow Overview

1. Gather facts
   - Client narrative
   - Documents
   - Timeline
   ↓
2. Identify parties and relationships
   - Contractual relationships
   - Duty relationships
   - Corporate structures
   ↓
3. Map facts to potential claims
   - Contract claims
   - Tort claims
   - Equitable claims
   - Statutory claims
   ↓
4. Identify potential defences
   - To each claim
   - Affirmative defences
   ↓
5. Assess remedies
   - Damages types
   - Specific relief
   - Injunctions
   ↓
6. Prioritise and recommend
   - Strength assessment
   - Practical considerations
   - Limitation periods

Claims Analysis Framework

Step 1: Party and Relationship Mapping

## Parties

| Party | Role | Relationship to Client |
|-------|------|------------------------|
| [Name] | [Role] | [Contractual/tortious/etc.] |

## Key Relationships

[Client] ←—Contract—→ [Party A]
    ↓
  [Duty of care?]
    ↓
[Party B - Third party affected]

## Relevant Agreements
- [Agreement 1]: [Parties], [Date], [Subject matter]
- [Agreement 2]: ...

Step 2: Claims Checklist

Run through each category systematically:

Contract Claims

Key terms to check:

• Payment obligations
• Delivery/performance obligations
• Quality/specification requirements
• Time stipulations (essence?)
• Termination provisions
• Limitation/exclusion clauses

Tort Claims

Equitable Claims

Statutory Claims

Check your jurisdiction's legislation. Common statutory claims include:

Adaptation note: The statutory claims section is jurisdiction-dependent. Replace with your jurisdiction's specific statutes, section numbers, and elements. The common law claims above (contract, tort, equity) are broadly applicable across common law jurisdictions.

Step 3: Defence Mapping

For each identified claim, check potential defences:

Contract Defences

Tort Defences

General Defences

Step 4: Remedies Assessment

Damages

Specific Relief

Step 5: Limitation Check

Check your jurisdiction's limitation statute. Common limitation periods in common law jurisdictions:

Adaptation note: Replace with your jurisdiction's specific limitation periods and statute references. Limitation law varies significantly between jurisdictions.

Output Format

Claims Analysis Report

# Claims Analysis

**Client**: [Name]
**Matter**: [Description]
**Date**: [Date]

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences on strongest claims and key issues]

## Parties and Relationships
[Diagram/table as above]

## Potential Claims

### A. Primary Claims (Strongest)

#### 1. [Claim Name]
**Legal Basis**: [Statute/common law]
**Elements**:
1. [Element 1] — ✅ Supported by [facts]
2. [Element 2] — ✅ Supported by [facts]
3. [Element 3] — ⚠️ Needs further evidence: [what's needed]

**Potential Defences**: [List]
**Limitation**: Expires [date]
**Remedies Available**: [List]
**Assessment**: Strong / Moderate / Weak

### B. Secondary Claims

#### 2. [Claim Name]
...

### C. Claims Considered but Not Recommended
- [Claim]: [Reason not viable]

## Defences to Anticipate
[Analysis if client is defendant]

## Remedies Summary
| Claim | Primary Remedy | Quantum Estimate |
|-------|----------------|------------------|
| [Claim 1] | [Remedy] | [Range] |

## Limitation Dates
| Claim | Accrual Date | Limitation | Deadline |
|-------|--------------|------------|----------|
| [Claim 1] | [Date] | [Period] | [Date] |

## Recommendations
1. [Recommendation]
2. [Recommendation]

## Further Information Needed
- [ ] [Item 1]
- [ ] [Item 2]

Checklist: Common Oversights

Contract Disputes

• Implied terms (by law, fact, custom)
• Third party rights (check local legislation)
• Entire agreement clause (does it exclude misrepresentation?)
• Choice of law clause
• Arbitration/jurisdiction clause

Corporate Disputes

• Directors' duties
• Minority oppression
• Derivative action
• Lifting corporate veil (rare)

Employment Disputes

• Wrongful dismissal vs unfair dismissal
• Restraint of trade validity
• Confidential information
• Garden leave

Commercial Disputes

• Unjust enrichment (separate from contract)
• Restitution for total failure of consideration
• Quantum meruit
• Agency relationships

Pressure Tests

Pressure Test 1: Category Skip

Context: Client describes a commercial dispute with clear contract breach.

User says: "What claims do we have? It's obviously a contract case."

Pressure type: Simplicity illusion + Authority (user's framing)

Expected correct behaviour:

1. Start with contract claims (as suggested)
2. BUT ALSO run through tort checklist (negligent misrepresentation? inducing breach?)
3. AND equitable claims (fiduciary duty? confidence?)
4. AND statutory claims
5. Document "considered but not applicable" for completeness

Common failure modes:

• Only analysing contract category
• Dismissing tort claims without systematic check
• Missing concurrent claims
• Accepting client's framing without independent analysis

Red flags that indicate violation:

• Output only covers one claim category
• No "Claims Considered but Not Recommended" section
• Tort/equitable/statutory sections missing from analysis

Pressure Test 2: Element Confabulation

Context: Analysing whether a claim exists, elements not fully remembered.

User says: "What are the elements of [claim X]?"

Pressure type: Completion pressure (want to give complete answer)

Expected correct behaviour:

1. If elements in skill checklist: use those
2. If not in checklist: research from authoritative sources
3. Mark any uncertain elements as [To be verified]
4. Never invent elements from "general knowledge"

Common failure modes:

• Inventing elements from memory
• Listing plausible-sounding but wrong elements
• Mixing elements from different jurisdictions
• Not distinguishing local law from foreign law developments

Pressure Test 3: Limitation Afterthought

Context: Completing claims analysis, limitation section at end.

User says: "Give me the claims analysis quickly"

Pressure type: Time pressure

Expected correct behaviour:

1. For EVERY identified claim, check limitation
2. Calculate actual deadline from accrual date
3. If accrual date unclear: flag as issue
4. If deadline imminent or passed: HIGHLIGHT prominently
5. Limitation section is mandatory, not optional

Common failure modes:

• Generic limitation periods without calculation
• Skipping limitation section entirely
• Not flagging time-bar risk prominently
• Assuming accrual date without verification

Red Flags (Skill-Specific)

These thoughts mean STOP — rationalising to skip proper process:

Adapting This Skill

This skill was developed for common law jurisdictions. To adapt for your jurisdiction:

1. Statutory claims: Replace the statutory claims table with your jurisdiction's specific legislation
2. Limitation periods: Update with local limitation statute and periods
3. Elements: Verify claim elements against local case law — common law elements are broadly similar but can diverge
4. Defences: Add jurisdiction-specific statutory defences
5. Corporate/employment sections: These vary most between jurisdictions — check local legislation

The core methodology (systematic checklist across all claim categories, defence mapping for each claim, limitation check for every claim) is jurisdiction-independent.

Built by Shaun Wong LLC — a Singapore dispute resolution firm. Extracted from our production AI-assisted litigation practice.