Inputs
Formula used
Each venue is scored with a weighted model and an optional risk adjustment.
- Base Score = (Σ(weightᵢ × ratingᵢ) / Σ(weightᵢ × 5)) × 100
- Final Score = Base Score × (1 − risk_penalty% / 100)
- If automatic cost rating is enabled, the lowest estimated total cost maps to rating 5 and the highest maps to rating 1.
- Minimum checks flag venues where Neutrality, Enforcement, or Stability fall below your thresholds.
How to use this calculator
- Set weights to reflect what matters most in your deal.
- Add 2–5 venues you are considering for the clause.
- Enter estimated costs and rate each factor from 1 to 5.
- Choose minimum thresholds for deal‑breakers like enforcement.
- Press Calculate ranking and review drivers and flags.
- Export CSV or PDF and attach it to your file.
Example data table
| Venue | Type | Est. Cost | Neutrality | Enforcement | Speed | Risk % | Final Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore | Arbitration Seat | USD 18,500 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 5% | 86.40 |
| London | Court Venue | USD 24,000 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 7% | 82.15 |
| Dubai | Hybrid / Other | USD 16,200 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 10% | 74.90 |
Example scores are illustrative. Enter your own ratings and weights for accurate results.
Why venue choice matters
Venue selection affects leverage, timeline, and remedy options. A forum with predictable procedure can reduce motion practice and keep disputes focused. Many commercial teams assume governing law drives everything, yet venue controls evidence rules, interim measures, and appeal paths. Use ratings to separate “good enough” from “deal‑breaker” venues, then apply weights so high‑impact factors dominate. A final score near 80–90 often signals strong alignment. For cross‑border deals, consider where assets sit and how quickly remedies can be executed.
Neutrality and enforceability signals
Neutrality is not only geography; it includes perception, judge/arbitrator selection, and institutional independence. Enforcement strength reflects how reliably judgments or awards travel across borders and how local courts treat interim relief. Rate each venue from 1–5 using concrete indicators: prior enforcement history, treaty coverage, and local set‑aside risk. Set minimum thresholds so any venue below your enforceability floor is automatically flagged for review.
Cost and schedule drivers
Total cost should combine travel, counsel, and filing or administration fees, then add a buffer for translation and expert work when needed. Speed and predictability are often correlated with docket load and procedural flexibility, so track typical hearing dates and average time to decision. If automatic cost rating is enabled, the model converts the lowest cost into a 5 and the highest into a 1, improving comparability.
Risk penalty and compliance checks
Use the risk penalty (0–30%) to reflect sanctions exposure, instability, reputational sensitivity, or uncertainty in local enforcement practice. A small penalty like 5% can separate two otherwise similar venues. Compliance readiness can capture data residency, disclosure obligations, and regulatory alignment. When a venue scores well but triggers neutrality, enforcement, or stability flags, treat it as a negotiation target: tighten clause drafting or add escalation steps.
Documenting the clause decision
Keep the ranked output with your term sheet or contract file to show a reasoned selection process. Capture the top drivers for the winning venue, and note which ratings were assumptions versus verified facts. If counterparties challenge the choice, you can adjust weights transparently rather than arguing opinions. Export CSV for internal review and PDF for approvals, then store both with redlines.
FAQs
Should governing law and venue match?
Not always. Matching can simplify interpretation, but neutrality, enforcement, and cost may favor a different forum. If they differ, tighten drafting on procedure, service, interim relief, and judgment recognition.
How many venues should I compare?
Compare at least two and ideally three to five. Beyond five, ratings become harder to justify and you risk false precision. Focus on realistic options the counterparty may accept.
What if I do not know a rating?
Use a conservative midpoint (3) and add a note in the venue field. Then run a second scenario with best‑case and worst‑case ratings to see which venues are sensitive to that uncertainty.
How should I set the risk penalty?
Start with 0–5% for minor friction, 6–15% for material uncertainty, and 16–30% for high disruption or sanctions risk. Use it to reflect downside not captured by the 1–5 ratings.
When should I disable automatic cost rating?
Disable it when you already have a reliable cost rating from policy, when costs are dominated by variables outside the venue, or when you want cost treated purely as a numeric disclosure rather than a scored factor.
Can I use the results in negotiations?
Yes. Share the top drivers and your minimum thresholds, not every internal assumption. Offering transparent weights can support a compromise venue, such as a neutral seat with language and confidentiality protections.