The High Court has refused Maurice D. Kiely’s application to compel U2 Limited to answer 16 interrogatories in his copyright dispute over the song “A Man and a Woman”. The court said leave to deliver the questions should have been sought and, treating the motion as an application for leave, refused it because the questions were inappropriate.
In his claim, Kiely says he composed the song in Los Angeles in 1998 and later offered it to U2 for its album “How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb” on conditions. He alleges that U2 breached their agreement by using the song elsewhere, performing it live and claiming copyright. He seeks €8 million in compensatory damages and €4 million in punitive damages. U2 denies the claims. Its defence says Paul Hewson composed the lyrics and that Hewson, Adam Clayton, David Evans and Larry Mullen composed the music.
The questions Kiely wanted answered included whether U2 members composed the song, whether Clayton recorded him singing it at Donnybrook, and whether they agreed conditions for U2’s use. Other questions concerned a different song, alleged drug-related matters, and hypothetical statements by model Cindy Crawford.
Justice Brian O’Moore said interrogatories require court leave unless an exception applies, and that the questions must be relevant and necessary, among other requirements. He considered each question as though Kiely had applied for leave. The judge found some questions irrelevant or only remotely relevant, some sought opinions or speculation, and some concerned evidence Kiely could give himself. The question asking who witnessed the Donnybrook discussion was also needless: Kiely had already identified the person in replies to particulars.
The judge rejected Kiely’s argument that he needed U2’s answers to confirm memories that might be mistaken. He said Kiely could give evidence about the alleged discussion and agreement, and that interrogatories were not required to sustain or confirm that memory.
The order concerns only the application for answers to interrogatories. It does not determine the underlying copyright claim or the parties’ disputed accounts. The court refused the motion because leave should have been sought and, even treating it as an application for leave, the questions were not ones U2 should be compelled to answer.