Courts

Court dismisses man’s case alleging he wrote U2 song and performed it to Cindy Crawford

Maurice Kiely had sued U2 Ltd, alleging the song ‘A Man and A Woman’ was written by him in 1998 and he performed it for the US model

Maurice Kiely had sued U2 Ltd, alleging the song ‘A Man and A Woman’ was written by him in 1998 and he performed it for US model Cindy Crawford
Maurice Kiely had sued U2 Ltd, alleging the song ‘A Man and A Woman’ was written by him in 1998 and he performed it for US model Cindy Crawford
Aodhan O'Faolain
Fri Apr 19 2024 - 15:59

The High Court has dismissed a multi million Euro damages claim brought by a man who claimed to have written a song on one of U2′s albums

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

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

On Friday Mr Justice Mark Sanfey agreed, following an application by the defendant to strike out the entire proceedings, where Mr Kiely had sought €12 million in damages.

READ MORE

Paul Coughlan BL, for U2 Ltd, said that Mr Kiely, who had been representing himself in the action, had brought a motion seeking ‘interrogatories’ or answers to certain questions from the defendant.

This counsel said was the second time Mr Kiely had brought such a motion in the action. His previous application had been refused by the court.

Counsel said that Mr Kiely in response to communications from the defendant’s lawyers. had said he was not continuing with the action.

Mr Kiely had also asked the defendants lawyers to stop harassing him, and only to contact him if they wished to pay him (Kiely) money.

Counsel said that Mr Kiely had also said in some his emails sent earlier this month that he would not be in court when the matter was listed for mention, but in other mails had indicated that he might attend.

Counsel said that Mr Kiely was not in court when the matter was called on, but had been in court earlier on Friday.

Counsel said that given the circumstances, added to the fact that his client has brought a motion seeking to dismiss the action over the plaintiff’s alleged failure to make full and proper discovery, the case against his client should be dismissed.

Mr Justice Sanfey adjourned the matter for a period to see of Mr Kiely could be located and if he wished to make any submissions about the application to strike out the case.

When Mr Coughlan returned to court, he said Mr Kiely had been emailed about the strike out application, but could not be located in the precincts of the Four Courts.

In reply the judge asked counsel if this was a case of that he “still haven’t found what he was looking for.”

Ruling on the defendants application the judge said that he was satisfied that there had been an amount of “flip flopping” by Mr Kiely.

The case the judge said had been listed for mention before the court on Friday to allow Mr Kiely an opportunity to clarify if he wished to progress his claim or not.

Based on the contents of the emails and the fact that the plaintiff had opted not to appear when the matter was listed before him, the judge said the proceedings in their entirety should be dismissed.

The court noted that the defendant also had a motion pending before the court to have the matter dismissed over an alleged failure to comply with his discovery requirements.

The judge also said that U2 Ltd was entitled to an order that its legal costs b paid by Mr Kiely.

In his claim Mr Kiely had alleged U2 was short of material for its 2004 album and that he entered into an oral agreement with Mr Clayton allowing use of the song on the album on certain terms.

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

A pretrial motion in the action came before Mr Justice Brian O’Moore last year, who dismissed Mr Kiely’s bid to order U2 Ltd to answer on oath pre-trial questions, known as interrogatories.

Mr Kiely wanted several questions answered by U2′s bassist Adam Clayton and the band regarding the song. as part of his claim,

In his ruling Mr Justice O’Moore said the plaintiff’s application should fail due to the nature of the questions posed.

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

He added that some of the interrogatories have “nothing whatsoever to do with” Mr Kiely’s case.

Afterwards Mr Kiely indicated that he intended to appeal Mr Justice O Moore’s ruling.