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.
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.
| Jurisdiction | Malaysia / adaptable |
| Practice Area | Civil Litigation |
| Party Role | Any / as prompt specifies |
| Lifecycle Stage | Post-pleadings |
| Document Type | Interlocutory Applications and Affidavits |
| Prompt Number | 25 |
| Required Inputs | |
| Expected Output | Striking Out Application 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. |
