Use these questions to organise the record, identify gaps and prepare for a funding conversation.
These are JusFund’s eight assessment areas. They cover common funding considerations, but each funder applies its own criteria. The examples below are preparation points, not pass-or-fail rules.
Merits of the legal claims
The legal basis for each claim, how the facts support it, and the strongest available defence.
Why it matters. A funder needs to understand both the route to establishing liability and the arguments that could defeat it.
What strengthens it
- A clear contractual or treaty basis for each claim.
- The elements of the claim connected to supporting evidence.
- The strongest defence identified and addressed.
What needs closer review
- A claim dependent on an unresolved interpretation of a clause.
- A material defence left unanswered.
- Key allegations without supporting evidence.
Quality and sufficiency of evidence
What the documents establish, where accounts conflict, and which evidence is still missing.
Why it matters. The record helps a funder test the case and identify the work still needed. Missing material is an information gap, not proof that a claim is wrong.
What strengthens it
- Contemporaneous documents supporting the key events.
- Witness or expert material where the issues require it.
- A chronology that reconciles the pleadings and exhibits.
What needs closer review
- Decisive facts supported only by disputed recollection.
- Essential documents held by others, with no clear route to obtain them.
- Contradictions in the record that remain unexplained.
Quantum and damages recoverability
How the loss is calculated, what supports it, and how interest, currency and any set-off affect the amount sought.
Why it matters. A supported recovery estimate allows a funder to compare the potential proceeds with the funding required and the amount left for the claimant.
What strengthens it
- A loss schedule tied to invoices, accounts or other records.
- A reasoned damages method with explicit assumptions.
- Interest and currency conversions with a stated basis.
What needs closer review
- A headline amount without a supporting calculation.
- Lost-profit projections with untested assumptions.
- Inconsistent figures, dates or currency conversions.
Procedural and jurisdictional integrity
The basis for arbitration, which parties and claims it covers, and compliance with notices, preconditions and time limits.
Why it matters. Jurisdictional and procedural objections can add cost or prevent a claim from proceeding. Their effect depends on the applicable law and circumstances.
What strengthens it
- An arbitration clause or other consent covering the dispute.
- Notices and preconditions supported by dated records.
- A documented analysis of the relevant time limits.
What needs closer review
- Unresolved questions about consent or the parties covered.
- Disputed compliance with notice or negotiation requirements.
- Uncertainty about limitation or the law governing the agreement.
Enforcement prospects
Where an award may need to be recognised and whether identifiable assets can be reached there.
Why it matters. Obtaining an award and collecting payment are separate tasks. A funding review needs a credible plan for both.
What strengthens it
- Identified assets, their location and evidence of ownership.
- Advice on recognition and execution in the relevant countries.
- State-immunity issues assessed where a state is involved.
What needs closer review
- An enforcement plan with no identified assets.
- Unresolved obstacles to recognition or execution.
- Uncertainty about asset ownership or immunity.
Counterparty risk and financial position
The respondent’s financial position and ability to meet a recovery, including any insolvency risk.
Why it matters. The available recovery may change during a long dispute. Financial information helps test whether the respondent can pay and whether further investigation is needed.
What strengthens it
- Recent financial statements and information on liabilities.
- Evidence supporting any guarantee or other source of payment.
- A business and asset position consistent with the proposed recovery.
What needs closer review
- Outdated or unavailable financial information.
- Signs of distress or unexplained asset disposals.
- A respondent with few assets and no identified additional recourse.
Tribunal, seat and institution
How the forum, applicable rules and tribunal affect the procedure, timetable and expected costs.
Why it matters. Timing and procedural uncertainty affect the funding needed. The review should account for possible delays and challenges rather than assume a fixed award date.
What strengthens it
- A reasoned assessment of the seat and applicable rules.
- Clarity on tribunal appointment and any conflicts or challenges.
- A realistic timetable and budget for the next procedural stages.
What needs closer review
- Material procedural issues left out of the cost estimate.
- Appointment difficulties or unresolved challenges.
- A budget that assumes no delay or additional procedural work.
Exogenous and strategic factors
Counterclaims, settlement options, parallel proceedings, sanctions and other external risks affecting the dispute.
Why it matters. These issues can alter the net recovery, the route to resolution or the ability to receive payment. They need to be considered alongside the main claim.
What strengthens it
- Counterclaims assessed alongside the amount sought.
- A reasoned view of settlement options and related proceedings.
- Relevant sanctions and payment restrictions investigated.
What needs closer review
- A material counterclaim omitted from the recovery estimate.
- Unresolved restrictions on funding or payment.
- Parallel proceedings that may delay or reduce recovery.
Budget, team and funder fit
A strong legal case still needs a workable funding proposal. Alongside the eight areas, prepare:
- A costed plan
- The funding sought, the stages it covers and the assumptions behind the timetable and budget.
- The legal team
- Who will run the case, their relevant experience and the work already completed.
- A suitable funder
- Check the funder’s stated claim types, jurisdictions and investment size before approaching it.
Published criteria from Burford Capital and Litigation Capital Management illustrate how funders consider merits, economics, recovery and counsel. They do not define JusFund’s scoring framework.
See how the eight areas appear in a report
The JusFund assessment sets out findings, supporting evidence and gaps for each area. AI produces the reasoning, versioned code calculates the scores, and a second AI model checks the result.
The report supports your review and a funder’s diligence. It does not predict the outcome or guarantee funding.
Further reading
- Burford Capital: its litigation finance diligence process (opens in a new tab)One funder’s approach to case selection and review.
- Litigation Capital Management: funding criteria (opens in a new tab)Its published criteria, including proportionality, evidence and recoverability.
Review your own arbitration claim
Your first assessment is free. Upload your documents and review the findings before deciding whether to list your case for funders.
Start your assessment