# Litigation viability assessment framework

Use this reference when performing the substantive assessment. Omit immaterial fields rather than filling them with boilerplate.

## Decision frame

Assess distinct questions rather than collapsing them into one score:

1. **Legal basis:** Is there a credible, verified claim, defence or counterclaim?
2. **Factual support:** Which required elements are established, disputed or unsupported?
3. **Procedural viability:** Are forum, standing, limitation, notice, exhaustion, arbitration or pre-action requirements satisfied?
4. **Remedy:** Is meaningful relief legally available and factually provable?
5. **Recovery and enforcement:** Is an order or award likely to produce a practical benefit?
6. **Proportionality:** Are likely cost, duration, complexity and disruption proportionate to the objective?
7. **Alternatives:** Would negotiation, mediation, regulatory action, internal process or targeted evidence gathering better advance the objective?

Do not average these dimensions. A strong claim against an insolvent defendant, an urgent claim that is nearly time-barred, or a valuable claim subject to arbitration presents different decisions.

## Claim-by-claim analysis

For each credible claim, defence or counterclaim record:

| Field | Required treatment |
| --- | --- |
| Legal basis | Verified cause of action, defence or procedural basis |
| Elements | Each element from current controlling authority |
| Supporting facts | Facts supplied or document-supported, clearly distinguished |
| Contrary facts | Facts or evidence weakening the element |
| Evidence | Exact document, witness or record locator |
| Missing proof | Evidence needed and why it matters |
| Opposing position | Strongest reasonable answer or objection |
| Remedy | Available relief and proof requirements |
| Dependencies | Jurisdiction, dates, procedure, expert evidence or unresolved law |
| Assessment | Supported explanation, not a win probability |

Exclude claims that lack a credible legal and factual foundation. Mention a remote claim only when a specific missing fact could make it material.

## Evidence matrix

Use:

| Issue or element | Supporting evidence | Contrary evidence | Missing evidence | Rating and reason |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |

Ratings:

- **Strong:** reliable evidence directly supports the material proposition with no presently identified serious contradiction.
- **Moderate:** meaningful support exists but an identified gap, credibility issue or contrary item remains.
- **Weak:** support is indirect, incomplete, contested or materially dependent on inference.
- **Missing:** no identified evidence presently proves the proposition.
- **Potentially Adverse:** material evidence appears to weaken or contradict the position.

Ratings describe the record, not the witness’s honesty or the ultimate legal outcome.

## Limitation and procedure

For each route identify the possible claim, trigger or accrual date, applicable rule, exclusions or tolling, alternative calculation, earliest plausible deadline, source and confidence. Treat contractual deadlines, notice periods, arbitration commencement and statutory preconditions separately.

Use an urgent flag when delay may prejudice rights even though the final deadline remains uncertain. Do not advise waiting for the report to be perfected before seeking urgent qualified advice.

## Remedies, recovery and enforcement

Separate:

- legal availability of the remedy;
- evidence proving entitlement and quantum;
- contractual caps, exclusions, mitigation, causation and remoteness;
- opponent solvency and identifiable assets;
- asset and enforcement jurisdiction;
- insurance or indemnity evidence;
- interim protection and dissipation risk;
- recognition and enforcement steps for foreign judgments or awards; and
- cost, duration, complexity and commercial consequences.

Do not infer solvency from company registration, turnover, public profile or the mere absence of insolvency records. An unverified recovery assumption must remain a material uncertainty.

## Route comparison

Compare only realistic routes. For each route state objective, prerequisites, immediate deadline, likely benefit, main legal or evidential risk, enforcement position, cost/time uncertainty and next decision. Preserve the user’s autonomy; do not pressure them toward proceedings or settlement.