Clayton & Ors trading as U2 -v- Cashman [2006] IEHC 360 (15 November 2006)

Clayton & Ors trading as U2 -v- Cashman [2006] IEHC 360 (15 November 2006)

The Court found that Ms. Cashman failed to discharge the burden of proof that the disputed items were gifted to her. The evidence did not establish a clear intention by the plaintiffs to make a gift of the items, particularly given their significance to the band's image and ongoing projects. The plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of ownership, an injunction restraining Ms. Cashman from disposing of the items, and an order for delivery up of the disputed items.

Citation
[2006] IEHC 360
Parties
Plaintiffs/respondents: Adam Clayton, David Evans, Paul Hewson and Laurence Mullen, a firm trading as U2; Defendant/appellant: Lola Cashman
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
15 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal (re Hearing) From Circuit Court / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiffs/respondents (U2)
Legal Topics
Ownership of Memorabilia, Gifts in Employment Context, Confidentiality Agreements, Malicious Falsehood, Injunctions
Property Law Employment Law Intellectual Property Ownership of Memorabilia Gifts in Employment Context Confidentiality Agreements Malicious Falsehood Injunctions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Clayton, David Evans, Paul Hewson and Laurence Mullen, a firm trading as U2

Plaintiffs/respondents

Lola Cashman

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (re Hearing) From Circuit Court / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the disputed items (Stetson hat, black trousers, silver earrings, green souvenir sweatshirt) were gifted to Ms. Cashman or remained the property of U2
  2. 2 Whether Ms. Cashman breached confidentiality or acted dishonestly
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and return of property

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Ms. Cashman failed to discharge the burden of proof that the disputed items were gifted to her. The evidence did not establish a clear intention by the plaintiffs to make a gift of the items, particularly given their significance to the band's image and ongoing projects. The plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of ownership, an injunction restraining Ms. Cashman from disposing of the items, and an order for delivery up of the disputed items.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment for plaintiffs/respondents (U2)

Orders

  • Declaration that U2 are owners of the disputed items
  • Injunction restraining Ms. Cashman from disposing of the disputed items or any property owned by the plaintiffs