The Court of Appeal has heard the legal costs involved in the civil assault trial of Conor McGregor totalled €1.3m, vastly exceeding the €250,000 damages awarded to victim Nikita Hand.
At a hearing to decide whether or not the decision by trial judge Alexander Owens to award costs against Mr McGregor’s co-defendant James Lawrence should be overturned, the court heard the decision had been misconceived in fact.
Counsel for Mr Lawrence, John Fitzgerald SC, said the fact the trial jury had found Mr Lawrence not guilty of the charge of sexual assault facing him meant Justice Owens had not had jurisdiction to award costs against his client.
He further said given the fact Ms Hand had taken a case against Mr Lawrence alleging sexual assault, despite not believing, according to her own testimony, that it had even happened, then she would have to accept the fact she could be held liable for the extensive costs involved.
Countering, Ms Hand’s counsel, Ray Boland SC, noted Mr Lawrence had not paid any of his own extensive costs himself, and he was “still in the same financial position as he was before” last November’s trial.
He added Mr McGregor had been evasive in answering who was paying Mr Lawrence’s legal bills during the trial, declining to answer a yes or no answer directly under cross-examination at the time.
Mr Boland said both Mr Lawrence and Mr McGregor had been represented by the same solicitors and for some time ahead of trial were represented by the same counsel, a fact that changed with the appointment of Mr Fitzgerald.
He said he thought Mr Lawrence’s counsel would remind the three-judge bench they should not “consider the grubby realities” of Mr Lawrence’s appeal succeeding.
“If that happens, Mr Lawrence will get costs from Nikita Hand. And they are going to exceed the award] of damages] to Ms Hand,” he said, adding the total bill of costs had been €1.3m before tax.
He said the appeal indicated Mr McGregor was “prepared to pay over the odds” to recoup the damages owed to Ms Hand “via his avatar Mr Lawrence”.
“Mr Lawrence is in the same financial position as he was before. In the interests of justice, I think the court should be able to take this into consideration,” he said.
