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 COURT OF Appeal has dismissed James Lawrence’s appeal for his costs in the case where a civil jury found that Conor McGregor raped Nikita Hand in a Dublin hotel in 2018.
In November last year, McGregor was deemed liable for sexually assaulting Nikita Hand in the Beacon Hotel on 9 December 2018, with the jury in the case awarding Hand over €248,000 in damages.
McGregor subsequently appealed the jury’s decision and had been seeking a re-trial of the civil case against him. However, the three-judge Court of Appeal today dismissed McGregor’s appeal “in its entirety”.
The jury in the civil trial found that Lawrence, of Rafter’s Road in Drimnagh, did not sexually assault Hand.
Lawrence, a friend of McGregor, had alleged that he had consensual sex with Hand twice in the Beacon Hotel on 9 December 2018. He submitted a joint defence with McGregor and retained the same firm of solicitors.
Hand told the court during the civil trial that she had no memory of this and described it as “a made-up story”, adding that if they did have sex, she would have been unable to consent.
Following the jury’s decision, Lawrence was not awarded any costs by trial judge Mr Justice Alexander Owens, who said it would be “completely inappropriate to do so”.
The judge said it was difficult to see how there could be any separate legal costs incurred by Lawrence in respect of any solicitor, with McGregor conceding during the trial that he had paid for Lawrence’s costs in the case.
Lawrence subsequently appealed the decision not to award him any costs.
Today, his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
Summarising the ruling, Mr Justice Brian O’Moore said the appeal came down to whether or not the trial judge was entitled to form the view that the decision of the jury meant that Lawrence’s account was not believed.
He said the trial judge’s view that it was “perfectly obvious” from the jury’s verdict that they rejected Lawrence’s account of what had happened between him and Hand “is not clearly explained” and is “at odds” with the concession made by Hand’s counsel that the verdict was potentially consistent with Lawrence’s account.
Mr Justice O’Moore said that while the trial judge appears to have disapproved of the fact that McGregor and Lawrence were, as he put it, in “lockstep” in defending the case, “I do not think that that in itself is a factor weighing in Ms Hand’s favour”.
“If the separate accounts being given by Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence were true, there is no reason why they would not have defended Ms Hand’s claim in a coordinated way.”
The judge also said he was “unimpressed” by the argument from Hand’s lawyers that
Lawrence should not be awarded costs because it would “wipe out” the damages awarded to her, adding that this would “neither be fair nor appropriate”.
“Ms Hand chose to bring these proceedings against Mr Lawrence. They failed. Alleging sexual assault against Mr Lawrence was a terribly serious thing to do. In light of the jury’s finding, Mr Lawrence did not sexually assault or rape Ms Hand,” he said.
Citing Lawrence’s own evidence during the civil trial, Mr Justice O’Moore said it was “strongly to the effect that the sex between Mr McGregor and Ms Hand was consensual”.
“It is completely at odds with Ms Hand’s account – which must have been believed by the jury – that Mr McGregor sexually assaulted her,” he said, adding that there were “several” instances where Lawrence gave evidence that was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict.
This included Lawrence telling the civil trial that the door to the room where McGregor and Hand were was “open all night”, that he heard Hand “having sex” and “having a good time”, and that she was “popping in and out of the room, getting drinks, having a laugh”.
The judge said: “It is plain that the evidence of both Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence on the central issue concerning the rape of Ms Hand by Mr McGregor was rejected by the jury.”
He said this evidence “can only be regarded as untruthful given the fact that the jury found that Hand had been sexually assaulted by Mr McGregor”.
The judge said the evidence given by Lawrence in support of McGregor “would, in my view, be enough to deprive Mr Lawrence of his costs against Ms Hand”.
“The giving of such evidence is a very serious matter. As far as ‘conduct’ goes, it is difficult to imagine a much more extreme example of behaviour which would lead a court to withhold an award of costs from an otherwise successful litigant,” he said.
“It is important to keep in mind the fact that, while it relates to the claim against Mr McGregor, the relevant evidence of Mr Lawrence was given in the same case and at the same trial in respect of which he now seeks his costs.”
Citing the “significant” fact that McGregor paid Lawrence’s costs, the judge said there was no reason to believe that Lawrence bears any legal obligation to pay McGregor some or all of these costs.
“Given that fact, one wonders what the purpose of rewarding costs of Mr Lawrence is,” the judge said.
He said the purpose of awarding costs “is not to provide a windfall to somebody who has successfully defended an action against them”.
He said if Lawrence does choose to repay McGregor, he will have received “a bounty of several hundred thousands of euro for his troubles”.
The judge said the arrangement between McGregor and Lawrence “remains shrouded in mystery”.
He said if the court were to award Lawrence some or all of his costs, it would mean Hand would be making a payment “initially to an individual who gave inaccurate evidence against her, and ultimately to the man who raped her”.
Mr Justice O’Moore said he would dismiss Lawrence’s appeal “as I have, for rather different reasons, come to precisely the same decision as did the trial judge as to whether or not Mr Lawrence should be awarded his costs against Ms Hand”.
“In my view, he should not.”
Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy said there would be no order of costs in relation to the High Court case or the appeal to Lawrence.
“We will reward the respondent her costs,” she said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say