AI Playbook
Defence and Counterclaim
Structured workflow for defence and counterclaim: organise the supplied facts and documents, identify missing information, draft or analyse in stages, and verify facts, authorities and assumptions before use.
This is a reusable litigation prompt from the Litigation AI Prompt Repository. It is intended for Malaysian civil litigation but can be adapted by changing the placeholders. Use the Universal Litigator Control Block first where source discipline, adversarial review and authority verification matter.
Prompt
Draft a Defence and Counterclaim for `[DEFENDANT / PLAINTIFF BY COUNTERCLAIM]`. First determine whether each proposed counterclaim is properly connected, sufficiently evidenced, within limitation and brought against the correct party. Distinguish a true counterclaim from a defence, set-off, contribution claim or separate cause of action. Draft: 1. the Defence responding to each allegation; 2. any incorporated facts relied upon for the Counterclaim; 3. the Counterclaim with its own material facts, causes of action, particulars, loss and remedies; 4. separate prayers for dismissal of the claim and judgment on the Counterclaim. Prevent ambiguity in party designations and do not incorporate allegations so broadly that the counterclaim becomes uncertain.
Repository section: Pleadings — Drafting
Stage: Pleadings
Suggested use: replace all square-bracket placeholders before running the prompt. For client-confidential materials, prefer a private or local model where available.
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia / adaptable |
| Practice Area | Civil Litigation |
| Party Role | Any / as prompt specifies |
| Lifecycle Stage | Pleadings |
| Document Type | Pleadings — Drafting |
| Prompt Number | 16 |
| Required Inputs | |
| Expected Output | Defence and Counterclaim output structured for litigation practice. |
| Reviewed On | 2026-07-26 |
| Version | 1.0 |
| Verification Checklist | Distinguish facts, allegations and assumptions., Cite the document/page for each material fact where possible., Identify missing or contradictory evidence., Do not invent authorities., Check every authority and quote only verified propositions., Separate proposed drafting from facts requiring client confirmation. |
