A High Court judge has clarified what documents related to U2 bass player Adam Clayton's expenses must be disclosed for the musician's action against a bank and firm of accountants over what he claims was a failure to detect that €4.8m was allegedly misappropriated from his bank accounts.
The guitarist is suing Bank of Ireland Private Banking Ltd and Gaby Smyth & Co, chartered accountants, Merrion Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, arising from claims his former personal assistant, Carol Hawkins, misappropriated sums from his bank accounts over a period of five years to November 2009.
Mr Clayton, Danesmoate Demesne, Kellystown Road, Rathfarnham, Dublin claims neither the bank nor accountants to detect the extent of the alleged fraud.
He is seeking €4.38m damages and €4.8m damages respectively against the defendants for alleged negligence and breach of contract arising from the alleged misappropriation by Ms Hawkins of more than €4.8m. The claims are denied.
He claims his accountants had assured him in September 2008 the sum allegedly misappropriated was about €13,585 when, at that stage, it was more than €4m.
Mr Clayton has brought separate proceedings against Ms Hawkins, Crannagh Road, Dublin 14, over the alleged misappropriation.
Last November, following submissions from the sides, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan made a series of orders and directions in relation to discovery and exchange of material and documents between the parties in advance of the full hearing of Mr Clayton's case.
A draft order was drawn up but a dispute over the contents of that draft order, relating to material concerning Mr Clayton's expenses over the period between June 2004 and November 2009, arose between the parties.
Today at the High Court Mr Justice Gilligan confirmed that Mr Clayton must provide the defendants will all documents including bank statements, credit card statements, receipts, credit card receipts, payroll records, records of other disbursements, cheques and cheque stubs underlying bills invoices and receipts in relation to the U2 members financial affairs between June 2004 and November 2009.
The Judge said he was satisfied after reading the transcripts of last November proceedings that this was the order the court made when the discovery motion was before him.
If any side was unhappy with the terms of that order they could appeal his ruling to the Supreme Court, he added.
However the Judge said if any further difficulties concerning the discovery of documents in the case arose, then the parties should return before him.