# Claims Identification

> Identify legal claims, defences, and remedies from factual narratives. Use when: analysing new matter intake, reviewing facts for potential claims, identifying all available causes of action, or mapping defences. Covers contract, tort, equity, statutory claims under common law. NOT for: legal research (use separate research methodology), drafting pleadings.

- Skill: `shaunwongllc/claims-identification` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add shaunwongllc/claims-identification`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/shaunwongllc/claims-identification/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Research & Search
- Author: shaunwongllc (https://skillmd.com/u/shaunwongllc)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/shaunwongllc/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

```markdown
## 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

| Claim | Elements | Facts Supporting | Facts Against |
|-------|----------|------------------|---------------|
| Breach of express term | (1) Valid contract (2) Term exists (3) Breach (4) Loss | | |
| Breach of implied term | (1) Term implied by law/fact/custom (2) Breach (3) Loss | | |
| Repudiatory breach | (1) Breach of condition OR (2) Breach depriving substantially of benefit | | |
| Anticipatory breach | (1) Clear indication of non-performance (2) Before performance due | | |
| Total failure of consideration | (1) Complete failure (2) No counter-performance received | | |

**Key terms to check**:
- Payment obligations
- Delivery/performance obligations
- Quality/specification requirements
- Time stipulations (essence?)
- Termination provisions
- Limitation/exclusion clauses

#### Tort Claims

| Claim | Elements | Facts Supporting | Facts Against |
|-------|----------|------------------|---------------|
| Negligence | (1) Duty (2) Breach (3) Causation (4) Damage | | |
| Negligent misrepresentation | (1) Representation (2) Duty of care (3) Breach (4) Reliance (5) Loss | | |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation | (1) False representation (2) Knowledge of falsity/recklessness (3) Intent to induce (4) Reliance (5) Loss | | |
| Deceit | Same as fraud | | |
| Conspiracy (lawful means) | (1) Combination (2) Predominant purpose to injure (3) Damage | | |
| Conspiracy (unlawful means) | (1) Combination (2) Unlawful means (3) Intent to injure (4) Damage | | |
| Inducing breach of contract | (1) Knowledge of contract (2) Intentional inducement (3) Breach caused (4) Damage | | |
| Conversion | (1) Dealing with goods (2) Inconsistent with owner's rights | | |
| Trespass | (1) Direct interference (2) With person/land/goods | | |

#### Equitable Claims

| Claim | Elements | Facts Supporting | Facts Against |
|-------|----------|------------------|---------------|
| Breach of fiduciary duty | (1) Fiduciary relationship (2) Breach of duty (3) Loss/gain | | |
| Breach of confidence | (1) Confidential information (2) Obligation of confidence (3) Unauthorised use | | |
| Undue influence (presumed) | (1) Relationship of influence (2) Transaction calling for explanation | | |
| Undue influence (actual) | (1) Pressure/influence (2) Causation | | |
| Unconscionability | (1) Weakness (2) Exploitation (3) Unfair transaction | | |
| Knowing receipt | (1) Trust property (2) Breach of trust (3) Receipt (4) Knowledge | | |
| Dishonest assistance | (1) Trust (2) Breach (3) Assistance (4) Dishonesty | | |
| Proprietary estoppel | (1) Assurance (2) Reliance (3) Detriment | | |
| Resulting trust | (1) Contribution (2) Common intention | | |
| Constructive trust | Various bases | | |

#### Statutory Claims

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

| Category | Typical Claims |
|----------|---------------|
| Misrepresentation | Rescission + damages for misrepresentation inducing contract |
| Unfair contract terms | Challenge unreasonable exclusion/limitation clauses |
| Consumer protection | Unfair/deceptive trade practices |
| Corporate | Minority oppression, just and equitable winding up |
| Employment | Wrongful dismissal, restraint of trade |
| Data protection | Breach of data protection obligations |

> **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

| Defence | Elements | Applicability |
|---------|----------|---------------|
| No contract formed | Lack of offer/acceptance/consideration/intention | |
| Void for uncertainty | Terms too vague | |
| Void for illegality | Illegal purpose | |
| Misrepresentation | Induced by false statement | |
| Mistake | Common/mutual/unilateral mistake | |
| Duress | Economic/physical duress | |
| Exclusion clause | Valid exclusion of liability | |
| Limitation clause | Valid limitation of damages | |
| Condition precedent not satisfied | | |
| Termination | Lawful termination | |
| Frustration | Supervening event | |
| Waiver/estoppel | Waived right to enforce | |
| Accord and satisfaction | Settlement reached | |
| Set-off | Cross-claim reduces liability | |

#### Tort Defences

| Defence | Elements | Applicability |
|---------|----------|---------------|
| No duty of care | Relationship insufficient | |
| Volenti non fit injuria | Voluntary assumption of risk | |
| Contributory negligence | Claimant's own fault | |
| Ex turpi causa | Illegal conduct | |
| Justification | Lawful justification | |
| Qualified privilege | (for defamation) | |
| Necessity | Emergency action | |

#### General Defences

| Defence | Elements | Applicability |
|---------|----------|---------------|
| **Limitation** | Claim time-barred | |
| Res judicata | Already decided | |
| Abuse of process | Collateral purpose | |
| No loss/damage | No compensable loss | |
| Causation | Break in chain | |
| Mitigation failure | Failed to mitigate | |

### Step 4: Remedies Assessment

#### Damages

| Type | When Available | Assessment |
|------|----------------|------------|
| Expectation (contract) | Default for breach | Position if contract performed |
| Reliance (contract) | Alternative | Position if contract not entered |
| Restitutionary | Unjust enrichment | Defendant's gain |
| Compensatory (tort) | Default | Position if tort not committed |
| Aggravated | Manner of wrong | Additional for distress |
| Exemplary/Punitive | Rare | Deterrence |
| Nominal | Right vindicated | Token sum |
| Liquidated | Contractually agreed | As per clause |

#### Specific Relief

| Remedy | When Available |
|--------|----------------|
| Specific performance | Damages inadequate; contract capable of performance |
| Injunction (prohibitory) | To prevent wrong |
| Injunction (mandatory) | To compel positive act |
| Declaration | Clarify rights |
| Rescission | Vitiating factor |
| Rectification | Mistake in recording agreement |
| Account of profits | Fiduciary breach |
| Constructive trust | Proprietary claim |
| Tracing | Follow property |

### Step 5: Limitation Check

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

| Claim Type | Typical Period | Notes |
|------------|---------------|-------|
| Contract (simple) | 6 years from breach | Most common |
| Contract (deed) | 12 years | Higher threshold |
| Tort (general) | 6 years from accrual | |
| Personal injury | 3 years (often extendable) | Special rules apply |
| Fraud/concealment | Postponed until discovery | Important exception |
| Contribution | 2 years from judgment | Short — don't miss |
| Trust | 6 years / none for fraud | Varies significantly |

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

## Output Format

### Claims Analysis Report

```markdown
# 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:

| Thought | Reality |
|---------|---------|
| "This is obviously a [X] case" | Obvious framing ≠ only analysis. Check all categories. |
| "No need to check tort claims" | Always check. Concurrent claims common. |
| "I know the elements" | Know ≠ verified. Check the checklist or search. |
| "Standard limitation applies" | Calculate the actual deadline. |
| "Limitation isn't urgent" | It might be. Always check and flag. |
| "Client already identified the claim" | Client isn't the lawyer. Do independent analysis. |
| "Just the main claims for now" | Main claims analysis includes defence mapping. Do it now. |
| "Defences can come later" | Defence analysis is part of claim viability. Do it now. |
| "The facts are clear" | Clear facts can still support multiple causes of action. |
| "Quick analysis is fine" | Quick ≠ incomplete. Run the full checklist. |

---

## 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](https://shaunwongllc.com) — a Singapore dispute resolution firm. Extracted from our production AI-assisted litigation practice.*