Conor McGregor case not yet over as judge awards legal costs to Nikita Hand 

They heard Nikita Hand tearfully describe her account of how the MMA fighter “brutally raped” her in a hotel room in December 2018. 

They saw, in the words of her barrister,  McGregor’s “mask slip” as he gave evidence across two days, strenuously denying Ms Hand’s allegations and accusing her of being a liar.

Proceedings were altogether different on Thursday. Many of the faces were the same. All the assembled journalists dutifully arrived in an hour early to make sure they got seats. 

The same legal teams were there, with senior counsels John Gordon, Remy Farrell, and John Fitzgerald leading their respective sides. Mr Justice Alexander Owens was there too, with a weighty task before him.

All that was missing were the main protagonists, who'd been there on every day of the trial in November.

The stakes were still extremely high, even though a jury had already found in favour of Nikita Hand in her case against Conor McGregor. And awarded her damages of just under €250,000.

The issue of who would pay the very significant legal bills arising from this landmark court case was on the agenda and, having lost the first court battle, Mr McGregor — through his legal team — was determined not to lose this one too. Legal experts had estimated the costs overall for the case would exceed €1m.

The oft-used rule of thumb in civil cases is that “costs follow the event”. 

It basically means that the losing side is liable to pay the costs of the winning side.

So, it would’ve followed that Mr McGregor would pay Ms Hand’s legal fees.

Indeed, Mr Justice Owens remarked in court on Thursday that “there was always going to be costs against McGregor, let’s face it”.

But the matter was complicated by James Lawrence, the co-defendant in the case. 

The jury decided that Mr Lawrence did not assault Ms Hand on the same day, so Ms Hand was not successful in this aspect of her case.

This meant that she may have been liable to pay his considerable costs which could’ve even exceeded the damages she was awarded. Furthermore, McGregor told the court he had paid Mr Lawrence’s legal fees, which involved the same law firm.

As he had been when summing up the case for the jury, Mr Gordon, for Ms Hand, did not mince his words.

Referencing social media posts made by McGregor in the aftermath of the verdict, Mr Gordon said the MMA fighter accused the court of behaving like a “kangaroo” court and that this was a “direct insult” to the jury and their decision.

During the trial itself, Mr Gordon said McGregor used “vitriol as a weapon” and was  “vocally abusive of [his] client in open court”.

He said Ms Hand should get her “entire” costs against McGregor. Mr Gordon also posited that the jury must have accepted that Ms Hand did not have sexual intercourse with Mr Lawrence whatsoever on the day, despite his claims they had sex twice after McGregor left the hotel.

For his part, Mr Farrell, representing Mr McGregor, said that his client should pay the “normal” costs and that an application to pay higher costs should not be granted.

Mr Farrell said it was “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.

He also said that no aggravated or exemplary damages were awarded against either man, and that post-trial social media posts shouldn’t be taken into consideration as aggravating behaviour as many litigants express “unhappiness” with court verdicts.

Retiring before 1pm, Mr Justice Owens said he would return in the afternoon to deliver his ruling in what he called a “most singular and peculiar case”.

He said that McGregor and Mr Lawrence were “lockstep” in their account of the day and that it wouldn’t be appropriate to award costs to Mr Lawrence even though the jury said he did not rape Ms Hand.

“Mr Lawrence was successful but not for the reasons advanced in his defence,” the judge said.

Mr Justice Owens said he would award “party-party” costs against McGregor which was not at the highest level of “solicitor-own client” costs that lawyers for Ms Hand had sought against Mr McGregor.

He added he was making no order on costs in relation to Ms Hand’s claims against Mr Lawrence, meaning each side will pay their own costs accrued from that claim.

Standing up following the ruling, Mr Farrell said that his side would very likely appeal Mr Justice Owens’ ruling.

“Sure, he said that in his [social media] post,” Mr Justice Owens replied, referring to McGregor. 

“I’m not in the least offended by these things.” 

With the case listed for mention again on January 16, there is still some road to run yet before it reaches a conclusion.