the inquiry it was expressly conferred upon him, see for example rules 7, 8 and 19. (3) If there is more than one election petition relating to the same election or return, they are to be dealt with as one (rule 6). It would be manifestly inconvenient and against the public interest if by late service in one case and subsequent delay in those proceedings the hearing of other petitions could be held up. (4) Respondents may deliver recriminatory cases (rule 8) and speedy service, in order that the respondent may know the case against him, is obviously desirable so that he may collect his evidence as soon as possible. [emphasis added] 36 Whilst Mr Chan’s emphasis was on the relevant Malaysian decisions, he also cited a number of English decisions. In this regard, whilst citing two decisions, Mr Chan focused, in the main, on the first. This is perhaps not surprising in view of the fact that the second, the English Divisional Court decision of Absalom v Gillett [1995] 1 WLR 128, was in fact reaffirmed in the first, that of the English Court of Appeal in Ahmed v Kennedy [2003] 1 WLR 1820. I note, in passing, however, that Absalom v Gillett dealt, inter alia, with the effects of non-compliance with s 136(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c 2) (UK) (“the UK Act”), which provided as follows: Within the prescribed time after giving the security the petitioner shall serve on the respondent in the prescribed manner — (a) a notice of the presentation of the petition and of the amount and nature of the security, and (b) a copy of the petition. In the event, the court held that the above requirement was mandatory and not merely directory and that non-compliance with it therefore rendered the petition incompetent. Laws J, who delivered the judgment of the court, observed (at 138) that “a petition is not competent for the purpose of obtaining relief whose effect would be to unseat an elected candidate unless the candidate in question has been made a respondent”. Whilst this court is not presently concerned with whether the plaintiff breached a mandatory provision by failing to join the successful electoral candidates as defendants, Laws J’s comments (albeit made in a specific context) underscore the more general point I have emphasised above (at [30]) and will return to below (at [75]), to the effect that an application under s 90 to declare an election void does impact, in the final analysis, on a successful election candidate’s rights, which should therefore also be given effect to as far as is possible. 37 In Ahmed v Kennedy, there had also been a failure to comply with s 136(3) of the UK Act (reproduced above at [36]), read with r 6 of the Election Petition Rules 1960 (SI 1960/543) (UK) (“1960 Rules”), which reads as follows: 6(1) Within five days after giving the security the petitioner shall serve on the respondent within the meaning of … section 128(2) of the Act and on the Director of Public Prosecutions a notice of the presentation of the petition and of the nature and amount of the security which he has given, together with a copy of the petition and of the affidavit accompanying any recognisance. (2) Service shall be effected in the manner in which a claim form is served and a certificate of service shall be filed as soon as practicable after service has been effected. 38 The court held that the provisions concerned were mandatory. It should be noted, however, that the UK Act contains a rule for which there is no apparent equivalent in the Singapore context.