Objections to finance company being added as co-plaintiff in summary judgment proceedings are without merit

Application by Everyday Finance to be substituted as Plaintiff and Respondent or joined as co-Plaintiff and co-Respondent in light of Defendant's appeal to Court of Appeal - opposed by Defendants - arising from summary judgement proceedings - High Court had previously ordered given summary judgement in favour of the Plaintiff - application should have been made under Order 17 Rule 4, not Order 15 Rule 14 - application should be straightforward and simple, not used to ventilate issues between parties - standard of proof to add Plaintiff is a prima facie case - defendants grounds of opposition do not amount to sufficient opposition - typographical error on motion papers not fatal as Defendants were aware who the Plaintiff's solicitor acted for - incorrect description of the entity to whom the debt is owed in the summary procedure addressed in prior judgement and irrelevant - unnecessary for Everyday Finance to obtain their permission or consent to make the application - challenge to validity of transfer of debt from AIB to Everyday has no merit - costs order made by High Court irrelevant - reliance on previous case law misguided as those cases irrelevant - allegations of champerty also has no merit - Everyday added as Plaintiff