Court had jurisdiction to substitute respondent as plaintiff in proceedings

Order of substitution – practice and procedure – whether the High Court had a jurisdiction under the Rules of the Superior Courts to substitute the respondent as plaintiff in the proceedings – whether the High Court erred in law in ordering that the proceedings be amended to substitute Stapleford Finance Ltd. as plaintiff in place of the notice party – O. 17, r. 4 of the Rules of Superior Courts – whether the transfer of the debt was an event within the meaning of the rule – whether there had been a change of interest – s. 28(6) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 – Chancery Amendment Act 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 86) and s.157 of the Chancery (Ireland) Act 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 44) – Daniell’s Chancery Practice, 8th ed. (London; Stevens and Son Ltd., 1914) and Wylie on the Judicature Acts (Ireland) Rules and Forms – High Court judge was correct in her conclusion that the assignment amounted to a change in interest within the meaning of the rule – Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Act 2013, s. 12 – no valid reason why O. 17, r. 4 should be given the narrow construction advanced by the appellant – appeal dismissed.