Conor McGregor must pay the costs of a civil action taken against him by Nikita Hand in which a jury found that he raped her in a Dublin hotel in 2018.
Ms Hand sued Mr McGregor and his friend James Lawrence claiming they both raped her.
Both men denied the allegations and said they each had consensual sex with her.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens said it was perfectly obvious from the jury’s finding that they rejected the evidence of Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence in what he said was a “most singular and peculiar case”.
He said both men were acting in “lockstep” in their defence of the action and it would be inappropriate to award costs to Mr Lawrence even though the jury found he did not rape Ms Hand.
The judge said Mr Lawrence was entirely successful in defending his claim but not for the reasons he put forward in his defence.
He said the jury had concluded that Mr Lawrence did not have consensual sex with Ms Hand and that the men had concocted the story between themselves.
Judge Owens said the fact that the jury did not award exemplary and aggravated damages did not cast doubt on their previous finding on liability.
They had been looking at all sorts of things he said – they had been told not to double count and to be moderate.
The judge rejected an application by Ms Hand’s lawyers to have the costs awarded on a solicitor and client basis – the maximum possible level.
He said this is something that must be done “sparingly”.
He said Mr McGregor was entitled to put his case and this was done fairly and sparingly by his legal team. The judge added that Mr McGregor’s occasional “theorising” and “advocating” as well as an interjection he had made at the beginning of his cross examination were not enough to justify awarding the costs at the higher level.
The judge said he had not decided what he was going to do about posts by Mr McGregor after the verdict on social media in which he attacked the integrity of the jury.
He said he may institute proceedings for contempt of court. Mr McGregor was a very rich man who could well afford to pay a fine, he said.
The judge said the jury felt under great pressure and there was no reason to suppose they did not decide the issues in accordance with their oaths and affirmations. There was a tendency to allow matter like this to pass unremarked, he said, but that led people to think they could say anything.
If Mr McGregor did post the text, he said it was “highly irresponsible”.
Mr McGregor’s senior counsel Remy Farrell said an appeal was “highly likely”.
No further action will be taken until the matter comes back to court on 16 January.
Earlier, Ms Hand’s senior counsel John Gordon had said they were seeking costs against Mr McGregor at the highest level.
He told the judge that he had a wide discretion in awarding costs against Mr McGregor based on his conduct before and during the case.
Mr Gordon said costs at the normal level would mean that a plaintiff would receive 80% of the costs they spent whereas costs awarded at the higher level would mean a plaintiff would recover more than 90% of their outlay.
Mr Gordon pointed out that Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence engaged the same firm of solicitors within days of the incident and Mr McGregor had paid all of Mr Lawrence’s costs.
He said they had filed a joint defence relying on Mr Lawrence’s version of events to support Mr McGregor’s account. They had also alleged Ms Hand’s claim was tantamount to an extortion attempt.
He said Mr McGregor then diverted significantly from his original account in his evidence to the court and this was repeated by Mr Lawrence.
Mr Gordon said Mr McGregor was also vocally abusive with Ms Hand in open court – in a way that caused the entire court to stop in its tracks.
He said Mr McGregor used vitriol as a weapon to intimidate Ms Hand in court and that was a matter the court should not tolerate.
Mr Gordon said the only rational explanation for the jury verdict was that they did not believe either Mr McGregor or Mr Lawrence.
Lawyers for Mr McGregor told the court the only reason for the protracted costs hearing was that Ms Hand and her lawyers had made an extraordinary decision to take a case against Mr Lawrence even though she never believed she had sex with Mr Lawrence.
Senior Counsel Remy Farrell said if Ms Hand now found herself in a difficult situation in relation to costs, she should go back to her legal advisers.
He said she could have taken separate proceedings for conspiracy or defamation.
Mr Farrell said the judge did not have a very wide discretion as to costs and Ms Hand’s lawyers’ minute analysis, theorisation and speculation about the jury verdict was impermissible.
Mr Farrell said a jury was not obliged to give reasons for their decision and it was not open to a plaintiff or defendant to come to court to seek to parse the result to seek higher costs.
He said that the suggestion that the verdict meant that the jury believed Ms Hand completely and rejected all Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence’s evidence was a wholly unfair characterisation.
We need your consent to load this rte-player contentWe use rte-player to manage extra content that can set cookies on your device and collect data about your activity. Please review their details and accept them to load the content.Manage Preferences
He said the jury was invited to find that Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence were involved in collusion and award exemplary damages as a result but he said they did not do that.
Mr Farrell said the CCTV footage shown in court showed a “substantial romantic entanglement” between Ms Hand and Mr Lawrence.
He said it was “nonsense on stilts” for Ms Hand’s lawyers to say they had no choice but to sue Mr Lawrence and he said the judge was being invited to go well behind the jury verdict and come to a different conclusion.
There may well be public speculation about what the jury verdict meant, he said, but the parties were bound by the verdict.
Mr Farrell also said it was grossly overstating the position to say there was abuse of Ms Hand by his client in court and he said a tweet by Mr McGregor afterwards, had “nothing to do with costs”.
Mr Lawrence’s senior counsel John Fitzgerald said his client should be awarded his costs against Ms Hand.
He said if costs at the higher level were going to be awarded then his client should also get them as he had been sued even though Ms Hand said she never believed she had sex with him.
He said the jury had been invited to award exemplary damages if they believed he had made up a story about having sex with her.
The fact that they did not meant they did not believe there was a made-up story.
He said an action was brought against him and failed. It was proceeded with publicly for an allegation Ms Hand never believed in.
