U2’S ADAM Clayton plans to apply to a New York court to restrain his former personal assistant from attempting to sell a $465,000 (€360,000) apartment in the city, the High Court heard yesterday.
The proposed application arises from proceedings brought in the High Court by Mr Clayton against Carol Hawkins over allegedly misappropriating considerable sums of the rock star’s money to acquire a number of assets.
Ms Hawkins, Crannagh Road, Dublin, was ordered by the High Court in December last not to reduce her assets below €1.8 million. That freezing order remains in force.
The court has been told Ms Hawkins denies misappropriating large sums of money but had admitted using credit cards and taking money without authorisation. She also denied using the money to buy property, expensive cars and jewellery.
Yesterday, Emily Egan, for Mr Clayton, told the High Court Ms Hawkins’s main asset was the New York apartment which she bought in 2007 for $465,000 without a mortgage. On March 22nd last, the management company of the apartment complex had secured an €11,000 charge on the apartment due to unpaid service charges.
Ms Egan said her client was going to apply in New York for a freezing order on the apartment or to have the American equivalent of a lis pendens(lawsuit pending) notice attached to the property.
Counsel said last December’s injunction freezing Ms Hawkins’s assets required, if proceedings were to be taken in another jurisdiction, permission of the High Court be obtained first.
While not objecting to a short adjournment of Mr Clayton’s application to allow Ms Hawkins time to reply to it, Ms Egan asked that the matter be dealt with on its return date in two weeks, whether or not the defence was ready.
John Noonan for Ms Hawkins, said the approach being taken by Mr Clayton’s side was a complex and expensive way of dealing with the matter and it might be possible to sort it out if a four-week adjournment was given.
Ms Hawkins wanted to sell the apartment and the proceeds could be held by a receiver pending further court order here, counsel said. This was a “much more practical” way of dealing with it. The allegations made were “merely allegations and nothing more”, he added.
Mr Justice Roderick Murphy allowed a two-week adjournment.
Last December, Paul Sreenan SC, for Mr Clayton, Danesmoate Demesne, Kellystown Road, Rathfarnham, said his client first became aware of problems with Ms Hawkins in September 2007 when she confessed she had misappropriated €13,000 of Mr Clayton’s money.
Mr Clayton dealt with this in “a compassionate manner”, altered his financial arrangements accordingly and kept her on in employment, counsel said. However, it emerged that Ms Hawkins, without the authorisation of Mr Clayton, had used his debit and credit cards for her own use and for her family’s benefit.
On November 19th last, when the allegations were put to her, Ms Hawkins accepted the cards had been used and money was taken without Mr Clayton’s authorisation but had disputed the sums involved, counsel said. Her employment had been terminated.