Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
A HIGH COURT judge has awarded Nikita Hand the costs of her civil action against Conor McGregor in which a jury found that he sexually assaulted her in a Dublin hotel in 2018.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens made no order in relation to costs of the second named defendant, James Lawrence, who the jury found did not assault Hand, meaning each side will pay their own costs accrued from that claim.
The judge said the costs, which are estimated to be in excess of €1 million, would be made on the normal party-party basis, and not on a solicitor-client basis, the highest level possible, that had been sought by Hand’s side.
Last month, McGregor was deemed liable for the assault on Hand in the Beacon Hotel on 9 December 2018, with the jury awarding the victim over €248,000 in damages.
When broken down, the jury awarded €60,000 in general damages, damages for loss of earnings of €135,026 and agreed medical expenses of €4,557.64.
It also awarded €50,000 for loss of future earnings, with special damages awarded in total of €188,603.60. No aggravated damages or exemplary damages were awarded. The total damages awarded were €248,603.60.
Following the civil trial, McGregor indicated he will appeal the decision.
Ruling
In his ruling this afternoon, Mr Justice Owens said it would be “completely inappropriate” to award Lawrence any of his costs even though he succeeded in his defence.
He said the jury believed Hand and did not believe McGregor or Lawrence, who he said were “in lockstep with each other and have remained in lockstep with each other”.
He said it was “quite apparent” to the jury that the evidence given by Hand “could not in any way sit with the evidence” given by McGregor and Lawrence.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens said it would be "completely inappropriate" to award James Lawrence any costs. RollingNews.ie
RollingNews.ie
He said there was “no middle ground available in my view to the jury on this” and that it was “perfectly obvious” from their finding that they rejected the evidence of McGregor and Lawrence.
Mr Justice Owens said it was “a most singular and peculiar case” in which the defence put forward by McGregor relied on what Lawrence said happened on the day in question.
He said it was difficult to see how there could be any separate legal costs incurred by Lawrence in respect of any solicitor.
He said that Lawrence was “clearly a man of modest means” and that McGregor was “footing” his legal bills.
He said that while he had reservations about whether Lawrence should have been sued, “the fact of the matter is Mr Lawrence and Mr McGregor went with one narrative”.
The judge disagreed that the awarding of damages by the jury cast any light on their decision and said that they were told during the civil trial what they were entitled to award and to be moderate when assessing damages.
He also said that the fact that the jury did not award aggravated or exemplary damages to Hand “did not cast light on their previous findings of liability”.
He said he did not accept the suggestion by counsel for McGregor and Lawrence that Hand should have launched an action for conspiracy against Lawrence. “This was a case which looked at all of the evidence in the two actions together, including that of the plaintiff and the defendant,” he said.
“The case against Mr Lawrence failed because they concluded he didn’t have sex with Ms Hand,” the judge said. “That conclusion of fact when arriving at a verdict against Mr McGregor had to be the same in both actions.”
He said Lawrence was “entirely successful” in defending his claim against Hand “but not for the reason advanced in his defence”.
Mr Justice Owens said he did not believe this was an appropriate case to award costs against McGregor on a solicitor-client basis, which is the highest level possible.
The judge said it was his view that McGregor was entitled to put his case and that the case was put fairly and effectively by his legal team. He said it did not involve such a departure to award solicitor-client costs.
“This was always going to be a case where one side or the other would be believed on balance or disbelieved,” he said.
He said Hand established that she should be believed based on the jury verdict.
The court awarded Nikita Hand her legal costs in the action against Conor McGregor. RollingNews.ie
RollingNews.ie
He said he did not consider McGregor’s interjection during his cross examination or the posts shared via his social media “as departures which would justify an award of costs at solicitor-client basis”.
In the posts, which were shared via McGregor’s social media account in the days following the jury’s verdict in the civil case, the court was described as a kangaroo court. This was referenced by counsel for Hand this morning, who deemed it an attempt at “scandalising the court”.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Owens said that scandalising the court is a contempt of court.
He said the jury were rightly concerned about being surreptitiously photographed during the civil trial and that they felt under great pressure.
He said that the social media posts “on the face of it” could be construed as an attack on the jury and “that cannot be tolerated”.
Mr Justice Owens said he has not decided what he was going to do in relation to the social media posts. He said he could if he wanted to begin to institute a proceeding against McGregor, which could find that he is in contempt of court and could result in him paying a fine.
“Mr McGregor is a very rich man and can afford to pay a fine,” he said.
He said the social media posts “was, to say the least of it, something highly irresponsible to do”.
The judge put a stay on the orders in the case until 16 January.
Counsel arguments
This morning, John Gordon SC, for Hand, told Mr Justice Alexander Owens today that Hand’s side are looking for McGregor to pay the entirety of the costs of the court proceedings taken by her.
He told Mr Justice Owens that the application is for the order of costs on solicitor and own client basis. He said “this honourable court has a wide discretion to award costs” against McGregor in entirety, owing to his conduct before and during the trial. He said it was also reasonable to pursue costs against Lawrence.
He said that on a solicitor and client basis, the plaintiff can expect to recover 90% of their outlay.
Gordon said that this was precisely the type of case where the plaintiff can be awarded the entirety of her costs, and referred to the conduct of both defendants before, during and after the trial.
Gordon said both defendants engaged the same firm of solicitors “within days”, and cited that McGregor had paid all of Lawrence’s legal costs, which he confirmed during his evidence. He said both defendants delivered a joint defence, relying on the second defendant to support the first defendant’s account.
He said it was the pair’s claim in their pleadings that the case was brought against McGregor maliciously and maintained in bad faith. He said neither of them pursued this at trial.
He said it was the pair’s case that the claim was tantamount to extortion, which also “was not pursued by either defendant at trial” and they did not produce any evidence in relation to it.
He said that in view of the content of the joint defence which did not proceed, it amounts to “an abuse of the courts process by the defendants”.
Gordon said McGregor then introduced an “alternative story” that had not been advised in his pleading and was not put to Hand during her cross examination, that there was no tampon when he was with Hand.
At Mr Justice Owen’s suggestion that this was hearsay, Gordon said: “It’s not even hearsay. He invented the story.”
“He said my client had taken a swan dive into the bath and then he gave evidence that there was no tampon. That was entirely new evidence to my client,” he said, adding that it came out in direct evidence and again in cross-examination.
Gordon said Lawrence “diverted from his defence as pleaded”.
Counsel for Nikita Hand told the court that Conor McGregor introduced "an alternative story" during his evidence in the civil case. RollingNews.ie
RollingNews.ie
“I think this is of some considerable importance because obviously as the case ran, it appeared clear that Mr Lawrence was attempting at all times as best he could to support McGregor.
Advertisement
He said during his evidence, Lawrence “actually falls in line with Mr McGregor’s new version of events and repeats Mr McGregor’s version of events”.
“He repeated the reference to ‘there was no tampon’. He repeated the evidence of Mr McGregor that there was no bruising, no scratch on her breast. It was repeated almost verbatim from Mr McGregor’s evidence,” Gordon said.
He said that the rational explanation for the jury’s verdict is that they didn’t believe either of the defendants.
“I say that quite deliberately because the verdicts are what they are, but when you just look at them, given that they didn’t believe Mr McGregor, it has to follow that they didn’t believe Mr Lawrence either because he was the man who was supporting Mr McGregor’s case.
“So in my submission, logically, the jury probably decided there was no sexual intercourse between Mr Lawrence and my client,” he said, adding that they were entitled to come to that conclusion based on the evidence they heard.
“Given that the jury didn’t believe Mr McGregor, it has to follow that they didn’t believe Mr Lawrence, and if they didn’t believe Mr Lawrence, they didn’t believe his story at all.”
Gordon said he was not seeking costs against Lawrence “even though I could”.
He said he was happy to take all of his costs against McGregor, which he believes is “entirely appropriate” as the “entire defence has been run between the two of them”.
Social media posts
Gordon also referenced posts that were shared via McGregor’s social media following the jury’s verdict.
Gordon said McGregor “utilised social media to disparage the court and by implication, the jury’s verdict”.
He said it was “significant text”, and “using the old language of scandalising the court, that is precisely what it was intended to do”.
Mr Justice Owens said that if the editor of the Irish Times published something similar, “he might find himself in here and be fined very heavily”.
Gordon told the court that McGregor put these posts out into the public. He said McGregor “described this as a kangaroo court, which is a direct insult to the jury and I believe that is a matter the court should not let go”.
When Mr Justice Owens asked if he should take account of this through costs or through a hearing concerning scandalising the court, Gordon said he believed the court could usefully take care of the matter through costs, but he said that it was a matter that the court can decide to pursue further if it sees fit.
Mr Justice Owens said he appreciated the point in relation to the jury.
“The situation in relation to the jury is they were very concerned in relation to the photographs issue right throughout the trial,” the judge said.
He said it was a “most unsatisfactory situation to put it at its most neutral, that the litigant would go and attack the jury and accuse them of disregarding their oath”.
Remy Farrell SC, for McGregor, opposed the application for costs at the highest level. He argued that the normal costs rule – which sees the winning party awarded costs by the party found liable – should apply in this case.
He said that contrary to Gordon’s claim, the court did not have the discretion to award wider costs and he said that Gordon’s “minute theorisation and speculation” of what the jury decided in their verdict “is simply impermissible”.
Farrell told the court that the reason they were here “derives solely from what is an absolutely extraordinary decision by the plaintiff and her advisers to proceed against Mr Lawrence”.
He said that Hand said during her cross-examination that she believed “and she had always believed that she never had sex with Mr Lawrence”.
He submitted that this case should never have been pursued “and if Hand finds herself in difficult condition in relation to costs, she should have recourse to her legal advisers”.
He said if it was genuinely Hand’s case that McGregor and Lawrence had engaged in a “concoction of conspiracy”, it was “open to the plaintiff to pursue that”. He also said that any reference to a conspiracy between McGregor and Lawrence was not raised in the pleadings.
“Those cases could have been tried together, but for reasons which are inexplicable, the plaintiff chose to pursue a case of rape which she never believed. I say that’s improper, it should never have happened.
“Why is it that costs follow the event in the case of a jury trial? A jury trial is a choice that litigants make. One of the consequences is one ends up with an unreasoned judgement,” he said.
He said that while it is open to any plaintiff to opt for trial by judge, it is not open to a plaintiff to then subsequently come to court and invite the judge to “parse” the result of the case – referring to the fact that the jury found against McGregor but not against Lawrence.
Asked by the judge how this affected McGregor, Farrell said it arises because the plaintiff’s side is “looking for Mr McGregor to award the entirety of the plaintiff’s costs rather than only the plaintiff’s costs in the case against Mr McGregor”.
He described the “modest” award of damages as “remarkable” and said that the court was bound by the verdict and was not entitled to speculate.
Mr Justice Owens remarked: “This is the most peculiar case that I’ve ever encountered in relation to this sort of thing.”
He said that one of the things that struck him about the case was that “either the jury believe Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence about what happened on the balance, or rejected them on the balance and they believed what Ms Hand said about it”.
Farrell disagreed. “Mr Gordon invited the jury expressly to consider that this was a concoction of conspiracy and invited them to award costs on that,” he said.
He questioned: “If the jury did believe Mr Lawrence never had sex with Ms Hand, how could they have failed to award aggravated damages?”.
He said the idea “that the jury verdict is to be interpreted as a conclusion that Mr Lawrence did not have sex with Ms Hand is utterly perverse. It’s not available.”
In respect of the posts shared via McGregor’s social media, Farrell said they had “nothing to do” with costs. He said there were “many unhappy litigants who express displeasure” with a court outcome, adding: “Why is it that the plaintiff should get a windfall in relation to it?”.
Lawrence
John Fitzgerald SC, for Lawrence, agreed with much of Farrell’s submission. He told the court that his client should be awarded costs against Hand.
Counsel for James Lawrence argued that he should be awarded his legal costs. RollingNews.ie
RollingNews.ie
He said the jury found that Lawrence did not assault Hand, and said his client had been arrested in relation to the matter and had been interviewed four times by gardaí.
Fitzgerald said that Hand pleaded a case that she had no memory of having sex with Lawrence, but pursued a case against him for assault.
He said Hand then came to court “and for the first time, she said ‘No, it was made up’ and, more importantly, ‘I always believed it was made up’.”
During her cross-examination, when counsel put Lawrence’s version of events to Hand, she repeatedly told the court that she believed that it was “just another made-up story”.
When asked at the time by Fitzgerald if she had always believed Lawrence’s claims were a made up story, Hand replied “Yeah”.
Fitzgerald told the court this afternoon that this meant that Hand either “made this case to her legal advisers and they sued Lawrence entirely wrongly, or else she came to this view and never told anybody”.
He said that Hand had the option to pursue the claim that Lawrence’s evidence was “a made up story” in a separate case, but decided not to.
He said to say that the jury either believed Hand in total or believed Lawrence and McGregor in total is “impossible to reconcile with the evidence”.
Fitzgerald said that one way the court can interpret the decision of the jury is by looking at the evidence the court gave them.
He said the jury were told that they were entitled to award punitive damages if they believed McGregor and Lawrence “got together to concoct a story”, but that they did not.
He said that if the court looks at the verdict without looking at the evidence, “the only reasonable interpretation” is that the jury “did not believe that there was a made-up story”.
“Mr Lawrence should be awarded his costs. An action was brought against him and failed,” he said.
He said the case that was brought against him was for an allegation that Hand did not believe in.
In a statement this afternoon, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre welcomed the decision by Mr Justice Owens to award costs in favour of Hand.
“This decision will reinforce the public’s belief that justice has been done in this case. Although for Nikita Hand, this case was always about the verdict, it was also important that both symbolically and financially, justice didn’t give with one hand and take away with the other,” chief executive Rachel Morrogh said.
She said the costs awarded “underscore the significant consequences arising from Nikita Hand’s courage and her brave legal action” and she thanked Hand on behalf of the DRCC “for holding the torch of justice high since 2018, despite efforts to extinguish it”.
“We hope that blaming, shaming and discrediting victims will become something of the past and that this trial marks a turning point where survivors can hope for a better experience through the court process,” she added.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
Mick O'Dwyer, legendary Kerry GAA manager and footballer, has died aged 88
Updated
1 hr ago
23.1k
27
Live Blog
EU will try launch US tariff negotiations with Lutnick tomorrow, commissioner says
Updated
6 mins ago
14.6k
As it happened
Trump hits EU goods with 20% tariff and rails against foreigners 'pillaging' US
Updated
12 hrs ago
116k
208
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 161 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage .Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 110 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 143 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 113 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 83 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 83 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 39 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 35 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 134 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 61 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 74 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 83 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 37 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 46 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 27 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 92 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 99 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 72 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 53 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 88 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 69 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say