Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE HIGH COURT has awarded costs against Conor McGregor in the proceedings brought against him by Nikita Hand over CCTV footage that was shown during her civil trial against him.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens said he was satisfied with McGregor’s “full” explanation that he had not disseminated the CCTV footage and had deleted all copies of it from his devices.
However, the judge said McGregor was “the author of his own misfortune” and noted that while he was “rather reluctant to do so”, he would make an order in relation to costs against McGregor.
McGregor was deemed liable in November last year for sexually assaulting Hand in the Beacon Hotel on 9 December 2018, with the jury in the case awarding the victim over €248,000 in damages.
In January, solicitors representing Hand requested an injunction to stop the publication of CCTV footage that was shown in court during the civil trial, following news reports alleging that the publication of video footage was imminent.
Solicitors for Hand claimed that the publication of the CCTV would amount to a contempt of court and that the “only purpose” for doing so would be to “undermine and discredit” the outcome of the trial.
Documentation relating to the request referred to McGregor and a business partner of his, Gabriel Ernesto Rapisarda, who runs a company which distributes McGregor’s stout in Italy.
On 5 January, Rapisarda was quoted in newspapers saying that the footage would be made public that same month.
The CCTV footage was shown several times during the civil trial and was the subject of media coverage.
At a High Court hearing in January, Mr Justice Alexander Owens ordered McGregor not to disseminate any CCTV footage that was shown during the civil trial.
He said he was satisfied that there was a “real and demonstrable risk” that McGregor would provide the CCTV footage to Rapisarda.
Mr Justice Owens also directed that McGregor return any copies of the footage or other material discovered during the course of the litigation to his solicitors and arrange for the permanent deletion of any copies he has.
He ordered McGregor to return the material to his solicitor within a week, and swear an affidavit outlining the steps he has taken to retrieve it and prevent its dissemination by 12 February.
McGregor filed an affidavit in relation to this last month. However, counsel for Nikita Hand subsequently told the court that they would need time to reply, claiming that his statement was still in breach of the court order and raised “further significant issues about his bona fides”.
This morning, the High Court heard that McGregor has sworn a number of affidavits in relation to the CCTV.
John Gordon SC, representing Hand, told the court that his position remained that McGregor is still in breach of the order and asked the court to issue an injunction to prevent the release of the CCTV footage.
He told the court that in his statement, McGregor had said that he has not released the footage. “He hasn’t said that he hasn’t caused anybody to release it, which is a different matter entirely,” Gordon said, adding that they were “two quite different things”.
“You can cause somebody to receive something while not releasing it yourself.”
Mr Justice Owens read some of McGregor’s affidavits in court, in which he confirmed that he has not released the footage “to any person or published or circulated it on any online platform”.
He also stated in the sworn statement that he never gave a copy of the footage or showed the footage to Rapisarda, nor did he discuss the case with him. He said he only became aware of the matter through newspaper reports and on social media.
Mr Justice Owens asked: “He [McGregor] has now filed an affidavit. Do I have any reason to believe what he says isn’t true?”
Gordon said McGregor’s explanation “doesn’t sit” with Rapisarda’s comments. He referred the judge to the original application for an order not to disseminate the CCTV.
This stated that after Rapisarda’s comments were published in the Sunday World, McGregor reposted a tweet containing the article to his social media account. “By so posting, the first named defendant adopted Mr Rapisarda’s rhetoric,” Gordon told the court.
“Immediately after this was published in the newspapers, Mr McGregor adopted this and republished it to his 10 million followers. That is simply at odds with his suggestion that he never had a conversation with Mr Rapisarda,” he said.
“Not the wisest thing to do,” Mr Justice Owens said.
The judge said that McGregor had said in his sworn statement that he had not improperly released the CCTV footage or given Rapisarda a copy of it.
“What can I do, Mr Gordon? What do you want me to do?”, he asked.
“I want you to issue an injunction, which hopefully restrains Mr McGregor,” Gordon said, adding that the MMA fighter had behaved “extraordinarily”.
Mr Justice Owens said he was at a loss to know what more he could order at this stage. He said McGregor had taken the steps that he had asked of him, asking: “Is it necessary to go any further in all this?”.
He has that “whatever urgency” might have existed in January when Rapisarda made his comments “seems to have blown over at this stage”.
“Because of the action you took is why it has blown over,” Gordon said. He said he suspected the footage would have been shared had Hand’s counsel not requested the order preventing its release.
Mr Justice Owens said he was happy that the matter had been “nipped in the bud” and that he did not think it was necessary to give an further injunctions in the matter at all.
Gordon said he was content with McGregor’s acknowledgement of the deletion of the footage.
Remy Farrell SC, representing McGregor, submitted to the court that the purpose of Hand’s counsel continuing to seek an injunction “is just to keep the controversy alive”.
“This issue is at an end now,” he told the court, repeating his original submission that there was no basis for the plaintiff to come in and seek orders in the first place.
On the matter of costs, Farrell told the court that he was applying for his costs.
Gordon told the court that as a result of the court order, McGregor had deleted the CCTV footage from his devices.
“If we didn’t make the application, he would not have deleted it,” he said.
“[McGregor] has acknowledged that he is bound by the application to the court and he appears now to adhere to it. I say our application was absolutely necessary and had we not made that application, it would have been all over the internet in Italy in January.”
Awarding costs, Mr Justice Owens said his view “is Mr McGregor is the author of his own misfortune in a way”.
The judge said he “brought this application on himself”, adding that Rapisarda “published some nonsense on the internet and he decided to distribute it”.
He said he was “satisfied” in relation to McGregor’s explanation. “He has given a full explanation, but it was inevitable that he was going to bring this type of trouble on himself if he was going to post on X his comments about the footage,” the judge said.
“I’m rather reluctant to do it, but I am going to make an order in relation to the costs against Mr McGregor,” he said.
He told counsel for McGregor that they could appeal this if they wished to.
Before rising, Mr Justice Owens said there would be “no further injunctions obviously”, adding: “It’s completely unnecessary.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say