Mr Ravi. General principle 54 Mr Ravi raised several arguments from general principle. This is not surprising in view of the fact – already noted – that the case law was not really in the plaintiff’s favour. 55 He argued, firstly, that speedy determination was not an issue as the plaintiff’s application had already been scheduled to be heard on 27 June 2006. 56 Secondly, he argued – contrary to the approach taken by Mr Chan, and noted above – that the Rules of Court with respect to the power of the court to extend time (in particular, O 3 r 4 thereof) applied in favour of the plaintiff. As I have already alluded to above, this particular issue raises significant questions of interpretation which I will deal with below (at [99]–[109]). 57 Thirdly, Mr Ravi argued that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to furnish the requisite security for costs under r 13 and hence ought not to be penalised. He further argued that strictness in applying the rule should not descend into harsh rigidity. The defendant’s reply 58 In reply, Mr Chan responded specifically to some of the arguments raised by Mr Ravi. 59 He first argued, referring to the judgment of Lee J in the Chong Thain Vun case ([25] supra), that the decision in the Sulaiman case (which Mr Ravi had relied upon at [50] above) had been all but overruled. I will deal with this particular argument in more detail below (at [94]–[96]). 60 Secondly, he argued that the extra-legal considerations raised by Mr Ravi (see [51] above) were legally irrelevant. 61 Thirdly, and referring to the argument by Mr Ravi (at [57] above) to the effect that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to furnish the requisite security under r 13, Mr Chan argued that this was “only one-half of a clap”, but that one needed “two hands to clap”. He argued that Mr Ravi had omitted to refer to what I would (in the spirit of the current expression) refer to as the other side of the coin or equation. In particular, he (Mr Ravi) had not referred to the fact that this “other side” entailed considering whether or not the election officials and/or this court had the legal power in the first instance to accept or endorse the attempted (late) payment by the plaintiff. 62 r 13(4). 63 Fourthly, Mr Chan argued that nowhere else do we find words similar to those found in Finally, Mr Chan emphasised that the relevant election laws are neutral in nature. 64 I turn now to an analysis and evaluation of the various arguments made by both Mr Chan and Mr Ravi on behalf of their respective clients, and which I have set out briefly above. Analysis and evaluation Introduction 65 As I have already mentioned, it would be eminently appropriate to utilise the two broad headings I have adopted above in analysing as well as evaluating the respective parties’ arguments