The High Court is to decide this afternoon the issue of liability for costs in the case of Conor McGregor who was found civilly liable last month for the rape of Nikita Hand in 2018, in what the judge has described as “the most peculiar I have encountered”.
MMA star Mr McGregor should pay the entire cost of her civil action at the higher level, thought to be well over €1 million, the High Court has been urged by Ms Hand’s counsel.
John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand (also known as Ms Ní Laimhín), who was awarded almost €250,000 in damages against Mr McGregor, submitted that Mr Justice Alexander Owens should consider the conduct of the celebrity fighter and of that of his co-respondent, James Lawrence, before, during and after the case when considering the solicitor-client level of costs.
Mr Gordon said that Mr McGregor, after a jury found him liable of the assault of Ms Hand in the Beacon Hotel in Sandyford, accused the court of behaving like a “kangaroo” court and that this was a “direct insult” to the jury and their decision, scandalising the court.
After a three-week hearing last month, the jury found that Mr McGregor did assault Ms Hand but found that Mr Lawrence had not.
Both men had denied the allegation.
Mr Gordon said that at the trial, Mr McGregor had used “vitriol as a weapon” against Ms Hand and that this should also be taken into account.
Mr Gordon told the hearing this morning that his client should get her “entire” costs against Mr McGregor and that Mr Justice Owens should make no order against Mr Lawrence.
The civil trial heard from Mr McGregor in evidence that he was paying Mr Lawrence’s legal fees, which involved the same law firm.
Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, said the costs against his client should be at the “normal” costs level in that he was the losing party in a civil trial and that the application for the higher costs level should not be granted by the “discretion” of the court.
Mr Farrell said it was an “extraordinary” that a civil claim alleging rape against Mr Lawrence had been pursued when she had given evidence that she did not have sex with Mr Lawrence, had no memory of doing so and accused him of lying.
Mr Justice Owens said the case was “the most peculiar case I have encountered”.
Mr Farrell told the judge that the jury found Mr Lawrence to not have assaulted Ms Hand and did not award any aggravated or exemplary damages in the case against either man.
Mr Farrell submitted to the court that post-trial social media posts should not be taken into consideration as aggravating behaviour as many litigants express “unhappiness” with court verdicts.
John FitzGerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, submitted that his client should be awarded his costs against Ms Hand because the action she brought against him failed.
Mr Fitzgerald said that his client had been a witness in the case and that after giving his statement and claiming to have had consensual sex with her after Mr McGregor left the hotel he was later arrested and interviewed numerous times by gardaí.
Mr Lawrence said the matter was “very serious” for his client, who was brought before the High Court in the “full glare of publicity” to answer the case.
Mr Fitzgerald said that the option of “punitive” damages was offered to the jury but was not awarded against either respondent.
“They didn’t award any, so what are we take from that?” said Mr Fitzgerald.
Counsel said that there had been conspiracy theories that the two men “got together to concoct and perjure” themselves but that the jury did not believe in a “made-up” story from both men against Ms Hand.
Mr Fitzgerald said his client had been truthful and consistent in his account of having consensual sex with Ms Hand which is what he asserted before and throughout the case.
Mr Justice Owens said that he would make a decision on the costs of the case after 2pm on Thursday.
