01 873 2134 
Maurice Kiely claims he wrote song entitled A Man and a Woman which is included on U2′s 2004 album How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb 
The High Court has listed for hearing next month a preliminary issue in a musician’s action seeking damages from U2 over what he claims is the band’s unlawful use of a song he wrote. 
Dublin musician Maurice Kiely claims he wrote the song entitled A Man and a Woman which is included on U2′s 2004 album How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. 
He claims he wrote the song in the 1990s and played it for U2 bassist Adam Clayton and that he agreed the band could perform the song in certain circumstances. 
He claims the band performed the song live in breach of contract and in breach of his copyright. 
He is now seeking damages from the band. 
Mr Kiely has sued Dublin-registered company U2 Ltd, a corporate entity set up in the early 1990s for the administration of arts facilities associated with the world-famous band. 
The company, represented in court by Kelley Smith SC, instructed by Beauchamp’s solicitors, rejects all of Mr Kiely’s claims and opposes his action. 
The song is accredited on the 2004 album to band members Dave Evans, better known as the Edge, and Bono. 
The song was the subject of earlier legal claim made by Mr Kiely before a California court. The claim was dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. 
At the High Court on Wednesday, Mr Kiely was granted a date for the hearing of a pretrial motion that has arisen out of his claim. 
Mr Kiely, who is representing himself in the action, claims the defendant company has failed to properly answer formal questions or requests for information about the case, known as interrogatories, he has put to it. 
Such questions are put to parties involved in court actions in order to clarify matters of fact and help to determine in advance what facts will be presented at the trial. 
The defendant is opposing the application and says it has not replied to matters put to it by Mr Kiely on the grounds that the questions are not relevant to the claim. 
The matter came before Mr Justice Brian O’Moore, who adjourned the plaintiff’s motion to March 10th next. 
The motion had been due to be heard later in March, but the court agreed to move it following a request by the plaintiff, who said that for medical reasons he wanted the matter heard as soon as possible. 
Share this post:
Our site uses cookies. For more information, see our cookie policy. Accept cookies and close
Reject cookies Manage settings