Clayton sues for proceeds from sale of NY apartment

U2 bassist Adam Clayton’s action to be paid the proceeds of the sale of a New York apartment purchased by his former personal assistant Carol Hawkins with what he claims was his money, is near settlement.

The case was adjourned at the High Court yesterday to allow a settlement to be finalised and will come before the court again next month.

Hawkins, the court heard yesterday, has lodged appeals against her conviction and the seven-year prison sentence she received after a jury found her guilty of stealing €2.8m of Mr Clayton’s money.

In proceedings before Mr Justice Paul Gilligan at the High Court yesterday, lawyers for Mr Clayton of Danesmoate Demesne, Kellystown Rd, Rathfarnham, Dublin claimed that in 2007 an apartment in New York was bought by Hawkins for $465,000 with his money. The property was subsequently sold and a sum of about €193,000 is held in a bank account in the names of lawyers representing the different partners. Hawkins’s lawyers claimed they were entitled to be paid legal fees, of more than €70,000, from the monies contained in the account.

Mr Clayton’s lawyers previously obtained a number of freezing orders against Hawkins, preventing her from dissipating certain assets pending the outcome of proceedings brought against the former PA.

Hawkins was sentenced to seven years by Dublin Circuit Criminal Court for stealing €2.8m of Mr Clayton’s money over a four-year period.

Hawkins, of Crannagh Rd Dublin 14, has opposed Mr Clayton’s claim before the High Court.

Her lawyers argued that under the terms of the freezing order granted by the High Court in 2010 and by an agreement reached between the parties they were entitled to be paid their legal fees out of the money held in the account.

Yesterday evening, following lengthy discussions between lawyers for the parties, Mr Justice Gilligan agreed to adjourn the case to a date in early March.

Eamonn Marray BL for Mr Clayton said it was hoped that when the matter returned before the court all that will be required to do is to strike out the proceedings. No details of the parties’ discussions were revealed in open court. It is understood that the terms of any settlement agreement are to be confidential.