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

Striking Out Application

Structured workflow for striking out application: 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

Assess whether `[PLEADING OR CLAIM]` should be struck out in whole or part under the applicable procedural grounds.

Analyse each impugned paragraph or claim separately, distinguishing:

- no reasonable cause of action or defence;
- scandalous, frivolous or vexatious pleading;
- prejudice, embarrassment or delay to a fair trial;
- abuse of process;
- defects curable by amendment;
- disputes requiring evidence or trial.

Identify the permissible evidential record for each ground. Draft proposed prayers, affidavit content where admissible, and submissions. Include the opponent’s best answer and whether amendment, particulars, a preliminary issue or summary disposal is the more proportionate course.

Repository section: Interlocutory Applications and Affidavits

Stage: Post-pleadings

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 StagePost-pleadings
Document TypeInterlocutory Applications and Affidavits
Prompt Number25
Required Inputs
Expected OutputStriking Out Application 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.