We need your help now

Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.

You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.

If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.

The song ‘A Man and A Woman’ is included on U2’s album ‘How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb’. Alamy Stock Photo
U2 ltd

Man suing U2 over song wants Supreme Court to compel Adam Clayton to answer questions

Maurice Kiely is suing U2 Ltd, a limited liability company linked to the band.

A DUBLIN MAN who claims he wrote one of the songs on one of U2′s albums has said he intends to “appeal to the Supreme Court” a High Court ruling that the band’s bassist Adam Clayton should not have to answer certain pre-trial questions.

Maurice Kiely is suing U2 Ltd, a limited liability company linked to the band, alleging the song ‘A Man and A Woman’ was written by him in 1998, that he performed it for US model Cindy Crawford, and unlawfully included on U2’s album ‘How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb’.

U2 Ltd denies his claims and says the lyrics were written by Bono, otherwise known as Paul Hewson, and the music was composed by all four members of the band.

Kiely alleges U2 was short of material for its 2004 album and he claims he entered into an oral agreement with Clayton allowing use of the song on the album on certain terms.

He further claims that the song would only be used on the album and would never be performed live by U2 or registered as their own composition.

Last month when ruling in a preliminary motion in the case Justice Brian O’Moore dismissed Kiely’s bid to order U2 Ltd to answer on oath pre-trial questions, known as interrogatories.

Kiely wanted several questions answered by Clayton and the band regarding the song as part of his claim where he seeks €12 million damages.

When the matter was briefly mentioned before the court today Kiely told the judge that he wished to appeal the decision “to the Supreme Court.”

Kiely said the costs of the motion was a matter for the court.

Representing himself in the proceedings, Kiely also said he did not wish to contest any decision the court made as to who should pay the legal costs of the pre-trial motion.

Kelley Smith SC for U2 Ltd said as her client had been successful in the application it was seeking an order for their costs of the motion.
The judge said that Kiely was entitled to appeal his decision to the Court of Appeal.

Kiely, he added would first need to seek permission from the Supreme Court if he wishes to have his appeal heard by that Court.

The judge said that U2 Ltd was entitled to its costs of the motion.

However, he played a stay on that order against Kiely until the full trial of the dispute has been determined by the High Court.

The judge said that he was concerned about how the matter was progressing, given that the case has been brought over two years ago.

The judge, noting Kiely’s stated intention to appeal his ruling, put in place a timetable for parties to exchange of legal papers in the dispute.

The judge then adjourned the matter to a date in July, when “we can see where we are”.
In his ruling the judge held that the plaintiff’s application should fail due to the nature of the questions posed by Kiely.

The interrogatories are inappropriate and not ones the court should compel U2 Ltd to answer, he said.

He added that some of the interrogatories have “nothing whatsoever to do with” Kiely’s case.
The judge also stated that Kiely should have secured court permission to serve U2 Ltd with his interrogatories, and that the application should also fail on that ground.

Aodhan O Faolain