LAWTECH.MY — Practical legal technology for Malaysian practice
AI Playbook

Interlocutory Application Strategy

Structured workflow for interlocutory application strategy: organise the supplied facts and documents, identify missing information, draft or analyse in stages, and verify facts, authorities and assumptions before use.

Community feedback only. Editorial ordering is based on relevance, review status and currency.

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

Advise whether `[PROPOSED APPLICATION]` should be made or resisted.

Analyse:

- jurisdiction and procedural source of power;
- legal test and burden;
- evidence required;
- notice, timing, service and procedural prerequisites;
- whether relief should be ex parte, inter partes or sought by consent;
- urgency and delay;
- alternative or narrower relief;
- undertakings, security or conditions;
- likely opposition and reply;
- costs consequences;
- effect on the trial timetable and overall strategy.

Conclude with a recommended application structure: orders sought, grounds, supporting evidence, proposed deponents, key exhibits and drafting sequence.

Repository section: Interlocutory Applications and Affidavits

Stage: Interlocutory

Suggested use: replace all square-bracket placeholders before running the prompt. For client-confidential materials, prefer a private or local model where available.

JurisdictionMalaysia / adaptable
Practice AreaCivil Litigation
Party RoleAny / as prompt specifies
Lifecycle StageInterlocutory
Document TypeInterlocutory Applications and Affidavits
Prompt Number19
Required Inputs
Expected OutputInterlocutory Application Strategy output structured for litigation practice.
Reviewed On2026-07-26
Version1.0
Verification ChecklistDistinguish 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.