Security for costsThese provisions have been tagged on to Part 25 (interim remedies) as rules 25.12 -- 25.15.

The old RSC Order 23 goes.

In its place is a new set of rules which recognise the difficulties of obtaining an order for security for costs against either an individual or a company ordinarily resident in Europe.

But the court when making an order has to be satisfied it is right to make an order and that the claimant falls within one of the following categories, namely:-- an individual or company not only resident outside the jurisdiction but also beyond the Brussels Convention or the Lugano Convention as defined by s1(1) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982.

It is a pity that rules designed to introduce simplicity into our civil procedure use a definition unintelligible on its face to most lawyers, and not just litigants in person! In talking of claimants -- whether individuals or incorporated bodies -- against whom a claim can be enforced under either the Brussels Convention or the Lugano Convention we are effectively talking of claimants not only ordinarily resident in Scotland and in Northern Ireland but also in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland -- but not the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

But, of course, we all knew that;-- a company, whether incorporated within or outside Great Britain, believed to be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so;-- a claimant, whether individual or company, who has changed his address since the claim was started with a view to evading the consequences of the litigation;-- a claimant who has withheld his address on the claim form or given an incorrect address;-- a nominal claimant, other than as a representative claimant, who is believed to be unable to pay the other side's costs;-- a claimant who has taken steps in relation to his assets to make it difficult for the defendant to enforce an order for costs against him.There are provisions for a defendant to seek an order for security for costs against a person other than the claimant (see rule 25.14 for details) and for a respondent to an appeal to obtain security for costs from the appellant (rule 25.15) or even for a respondent who also appeals to provide security to the appellant.Sale of land and conveyancing counselNew rules 40.15 -- 40.19 set out the court's powers to order the sale, mortgage, etcetera of land and the powers of conveyancing counsel.

There are no surprises to be found; but there will be a supplemental practice direction, which those involved in such matters should consider once it is released.

It contains such details as to how to go about selling an asset under a court order, how to deal with the proceeds, and so on.ServiceRule 6.7(1) will now contain a reminder that under rule 2.8 Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays, Christmas Day and Good Friday are excluded from calculations of periods of time of less than five days.

But rule 6.7(2) is to be amended to make it clear that any document served after 5pm on a business day or at any time on any of the days just mentioned is to be treated as being served on the next business day; at the moment a claim form is treated differently, and is not deemed served the following day if served after 5pm.

From 2 May all documents are to be treated in the same way when it comes to calculating the deemed date of service.AllocationA claim is for £10,000; the Part 20 claim is for £25,000.

Does the procedural judge allocate to the fast track or the multi-track? At the moment rule 26.7(3) says that:'The court will not allocate proceedings to a track if the financial value of any claim in those proceedings, assessed by the court under rule 26.8, exceeds the limit for that track unless all the parties consent to the allocation of the claim to that track.'So it is a multi-track case.

Not so after 2 May: the words 'any claim in those proceedings' become 'the claim'.

In other words, the financial value of the original claim is the only financial value to be considered for allocation purposes.

One assumes the vice-chancellor will revisit practice direction (PD) 26 para 7.7, which will now have to be amended.Rules of the Supreme CourtRule 21 through to rule 31 contain minor amendments to several of the old RSC.

Most appear to be probably correcting errors which slipped through when, in a frenzy of activity in late 1998, schedules 1 and 2 to the Civil Procedure Rules were created.

Anyone involved with an appeal from a tribunal under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 should look at the revised Schedule 1 RSC order 94 rule 8.

Secondly, the text previously found in RSC order 59 r20 dealing with the release of an appellant on bail by the Court of Appeal has been inserted in a new schedule 1 RSC order 109 rule 4.

Apart from those two matters, the rest is just tweaking of the rules.

But there is a valid point to be made; just because an old RSC is to be found in schedule 1 does not mean that the old rule and its modern reincarnation in schedule 1 are the same.

Many of the old RSC underwent subtle changes in April 1999.

Never assume you know the rule; it is always better to check.County court rulesThere have been very minor corrections to schedule 2 CCR orders 30, 33, 45 and 49 to rectify an error in the reference to another part of the CCR dealing with the service of notices; nothing further need be said here.Now you see them, now you don'tSpace does not permit a list, but a total of 20 of the old RSC and five of the County Court Rules (CCR) are revoked either in whole or in part by this statutory instrument.

In the main, this is because of the more substantial rule changes introduced by the statutory instrum ent, but it reinforces the need always to check the relevant rule(s).

And it underlines the need to keep up to date.And to comeAdditional articles will look at the other provisions of new rules and practice directions for appeals, parties and group litigation (GLOs), service out of the jurisdiction and (as soon as it is published) the forthcoming statutory instrument dealing with costs.At the time of writing the PDs supplementing the new rules for Appeals and GLOs are still awaited; they are due for publication on 3 April.

One word of warning: under transitional provisions introduced by SI 2000/221 an appeal from an order or judgment made before 2 May 2000 is dealt with under the pre-2 May rules, so for a while the old and new systems will (no doubt confusingly) run alongside one another.There have also been minor amendments to the CCR dealing with oral examinations and attachment of earnings orders; further articles will deal with these points as soon as possible.