The Daily Star Ireland
Lawyers representing Nikita Hand, who won her civil case against MMA fighter Conor McGregor, have requested that the High Court award them the highest possible costs from McGregor.
Ms. Hand filed a civil lawsuit for damages against McGregor and his friend James Lawrence, alleging that both men raped her at a Dublin hotel on December 9, 2018.
The jury concluded that McGregor raped her but Lawrence did not. Consequently, Ms. Hand was awarded nearly €250,000 in damages.
Ms. Hand’s legal team is now seeking to have the full costs of the proceedings charged to McGregor. Senior Counsel John Gordon, representing Ms. Hand, stated they are not seeking costs from Mr. Lawrence. He is content to charge all costs to McGregor without imposing any on Lawrence, arguing this is fitting as the defense was conducted jointly by both men.
Mr. Gordon informed Mr. Justice Alexander Owens that he has broad discretion in awarding costs against McGregor, given his behavior before and during the trial. Though he acknowledged the judge’s point that awarding costs at a higher level requires exceptional circumstances.
Gordon explained that normal costs would cover 80% of the plaintiff’s expenses, whereas higher costs would cover over 90%. He cited McGregor’s conduct before and during the trial as relevant factors.
He noted that McGregor and Lawrence hired the same law firm shortly after the incident, and McGregor paid for all of Lawrence’s legal fees. They filed a joint defense, using Lawrence’s account to support McGregor’s version of events. They also accused Ms. Hand of attempting extortion.
Gordon pointed out that McGregor significantly deviated from his original story during his testimony, a change echoed by Lawrence. McGregor was also vocally abusive towards Ms. Hand in open court, causing a disruption.
Gordon argued that McGregor used abusive language to intimidate Ms. Hand, a behavior the court should not tolerate. He suggested that the jury’s verdict implied they didn’t believe either McGregor or Lawrence.
Additionally, Gordon highlighted social media posts by McGregor after the verdict, in which he disparaged the court and the jury’s decision. McGregor labeled the court a “kangaroo court,” directly insulting the jury.
Mr. Justice Owens noted that the jury had expressed concerns about being photographed during the trial and found it unsatisfactory that a litigant would attack the jury’s integrity.
McGregor’s lawyers contended that the extended costs hearing was due to Ms. Hand and her legal team’s unusual decision to sue Lawrence, despite her not believing she had sex with him. Senior Counsel Remy Farrell argued that if Ms. Hand faced difficulties regarding costs, she should consult her legal advisers. He suggested she could have pursued separate legal actions for conspiracy or defamation.
Farrell argued that the judge’s discretion on costs was not extensive and criticized Ms. Hand’s lawyers for overanalyzing the jury’s verdict to seek higher costs. He stated that it was inappropriate to infer that the jury completely disbelieved McGregor and Lawrence.
Farrell pointed out that the jury was asked to find that McGregor and Lawrence colluded and to award exemplary damages, but they did not. He mentioned that CCTV footage showed a significant romantic involvement between Ms. Hand and Lawrence, calling it nonsensical for Ms. Hand’s lawyers to claim they had no choice but to sue Lawrence.
He also downplayed claims of abuse by McGregor in court and dismissed the relevance of McGregor’s post-trial tweet to the costs issue.
Lawrence’s senior counsel, John Fitzgerald, argued that his client should be awarded his costs against Ms. Hand. He contended that if higher costs were awarded, Lawrence should receive them as well since he was sued despite Ms. Hand not believing he had sex with her. Fitzgerald pointed out that the jury did not believe Lawrence fabricated a story about having sex with Ms. Hand, as they were invited to award exemplary damages if they did.
The judge announced he would deliver his decision after lunch.
