The High Court has affirmed Circuit Court orders in a dispute over four items of U2 memorabilia that former band stylist Lola Cashman had placed with Christie’s for auction. The court found, on the balance of probabilities, that the black trousers, silver earrings, green sweatshirt and Stetson hat remained the band members’ property. It rejected Cashman’s claim that the items had been given to her.
The appeal was a rehearing of the Circuit Court’s judgment of 5 July 2005 and its costs order of 20 July 2005. Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered the High Court judgment on 15 November 2006. The court considered ownership of the four disputed items; it noted that Larry Mullen had accepted giving Cashman a pair of Converse boots, so their ownership was not in issue.
Cashman said she had received the disputed items during or at the end of the 1987 Joshua Tree tour. She told the court Bono gave her the earrings after saying they would look better on her, and that she obtained the trousers, sweatshirt and hat as the tour’s wardrobe was being cleared. Bono denied giving her the items. He said the trousers and hat remained important for stage image and continuity in filming. A wardrobe department witness also described those items as important while filming continued.
Justice Peart said Cashman had to satisfy the court that ownership had passed to her. In assessing the competing accounts, he considered witness evidence, documents and inconsistencies in her accounts. He found significant problems with her evidence about other matters, including an inventory she said accompanied property returned to the band’s management, and the origin and disposal of a video monitor. He also found that a photograph she relied on to support her account of the earrings showed a different pair. The judge said these matters affected his assessment of her overall credibility.
The judge said he did not conclude that Cashman was deliberately untruthful. He considered that she may have come to believe the items were gifts, but her account did not meet the civil standard of probability. He concluded that the four items remained the plaintiffs’ property and affirmed the Circuit Court orders. The judgment does not set out the terms of those orders in detail.