Ní Laimhín v McGregor and Another

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 162
• Year: 2025
• Docket Number: Record Number: 2025/32

Between/

Nikita Ní Laimhín

Plaintiff/Respondent

and

Conor McGregor

First Named Defendant/Appellant

and

James Lawrence

Second Named Defendant

[2025] IECA 162

Kennedy J.

O'Moore J.

MacGrath J.

Record Number: 2025/32

High Court Record Number: 2021/298P

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Sexual assault – Damages – Costs – Appellant appealing against a verdict – Whether the respondent should be awarded costs in respect of new evidence motions

Facts: The respondent, Ms Hand, alleged that the appellant, Mr McGregor, raped her. The trial of the action took place over a period of 12 days in November 2024. On 22 November 2024, the jury found that Mr McGregor assaulted Ms Hand. It assessed damages in the amount of €248,603.60. Mr McGregor appealed to the Court of Appeal against the verdict. Ground of appeal E in the notice of appeal related to the “new evidence” which Mr McGregor wished to adduce. That ground was abandoned when the Court of Appeal sat on 1 July 2025 to commence the hearing of the appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that this ground was no longer being pursued, there was an outstanding issue of costs pertaining to it. Counsel for Ms Hand made an application on the second day of the appeal to the effect that she should have the costs incurred by her in respect of the two “new evidence” motions awarded to her on a legal practitioner and own client basis regardless of the outcome of the balance of the appeal. The four grounds of appeal upon which Mr McGregor relied were as follows: (1) the trial judge’s decision to ask the jury to decide whether or not Ms Hand had been “assaulted” as opposed to “sexually assaulted”; (2) the “no comment” evidence; (3) the ability of Mr McGregor’s counsel to carry out an effective cross-examination; and (4) a selection of alleged failures in the trial judge’s charge to the jury.

Held by O’Moore J that the conduct of Mr McGregor, in publicly introducing evidence which fundamentally called into question the correctness of the jury’s verdict and the testimony of Ms Hand which had led to it, only to abandon that evidence when it was about to be tested, was behaviour which deserved to be marked by a palpable sign of the court’s displeasure and disapproval. O’Moore J awarded Ms Hand her costs of the “new evidence” motions on a legal practitioner and own client basis against Mr McGregor. Regarding Mr McGregor’s grounds of appeal, O’Moore J held that: (1) the modest nature of the award, even if one was entitled to take it into account, did not carry sufficient weight balanced against the contents of the judge’s charge for this ground of appeal to succeed - equally, the lack of any award of aggravated or exemplary damages (which the trial judge had stated was open to the jury) was a matter for the jury and it did not, given the way in which the jury were charged, mean that the jury was in any doubt about the nature of Ms Hand’s claim or what she had to establish to bring that claim home; (2) even if one ignores the requisition and simply considers in the round the cross-examination of Mr McGregor and the directions given to the jury (not just in the charge) by the trial judge about that evidence, the potential prejudice to Mr McGregor asserted on his behalf by his counsel was simply not established; (3) this ground of appeal constituted a very small issue which had not been pressed in a way that would suggest that the verdict of the jury and consequent order of the High Court should be set aside; and (4) the trial judge had spent a great deal of time charging the jury on individual items of evidence, the burden of proof, the drawing of inferences, and all other relevant issues that should be addressed in such a charge.

O’Moore J dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

Appeal dismissed.

No Redaction Needed

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore delivered on the 31 ^st day of July, 2025 .

1 . On Sunday the 9 ^th December 2018 four people made their way to a penthouse suite in the Beacon Hotel, Sandyford, County Dublin. 1 What happened that day was the subject of fierce dispute at the trial of this action, which took place before Owens J. and a jury over a period of 12 days in November 2024. Ms. Hand alleges that Mr. McGregor raped her. Mr. McGregor said that there had been “fully consensual … enthusiastic and … athletic” sexual intercourse. The jury therefore had to decide, in essence, between Mr. McGregor's description of a rather

tawdry episode and Ms. Hand's claim that a criminal offence had been committed against her

2 . On the 22nd day of November 2024, the jury retired to consider the following issues:-

“(1) Did Conor McGregor assault Nikita Ní Laimhín?

(2) Did James Lawrence assault Nikita Ní Laimhín?

If the answers to both question (1) and question (2) are “no” proceed no further.

If the answer to question (1) is “yes”, assess damages payable by Conor McGregor under the following heads…

If the answer to question (2) is “yes”, assess damages payable by James Lawrence under the following heads…”

3 . To issue (1), the jury replied “yes”. It then assessed damages in the amount of €248,603.60. This was made up of €60,000 in general damages and €188,603.60 in special damages. Neither exemplary nor aggravated damages were awarded, though they had been sought.

4 . Mr. McGregor has appealed this verdict against him. The balance of this judgment will be structured by reference to the grounds of appeal, though not necessarily in the order in which they appear in the notice of appeal. Ground of appeal E in the notice of appeal relates to the “new evidence” which Mr. McGregor wished to adduce. This ground of appeal was abruptly abandoned, without any prior notice to the court, when the court sat on the 1 ^st July 2025 to commence the hearing of the appeal. Notwithstanding the fact that this ground of appeal is no longer being pursued by Mr. McGregor, there is an outstanding issue (of costs) pertaining to it. I will therefore begin the substantive part of this judgment by considering the application made (on the second day of the appeal) by counsel for Ms. Hand, to the effect that she should have the costs incurred by her in respect of the two “new evidence” motions awarded to her on a legal practitioner and own client basis regardless of the outcome of the balance of the appeal. I will then consider, in the sequence in which they are advanced on the notice of appeal, the further four grounds of appeal upon which Mr. McGregor relies.

5 . The balance of his judgment will, therefore, be in the following order:-

• (1) “The new evidence” – paragraphs 7 to 60;

• (2) The trial judge's decision to ask the jury to decide whether or not Ms. Hand had been “assaulted” as opposed to “sexually assaulted” – paragraphs 61 to 100;

• (3) The “no comment” evidence – paragraphs 101 to 153;

• (4) The ability of Mr. McGregor's counsel to carry out an effective cross-examination – paragraphs 154 to 167;

• (5) A selection of alleged failures in the trial judge's charge to the jury – paragraphs 168 to 179.

6 . I should say that a sixth ground of appeal, which appears to be a catch-all ground, is to be found at (F) of the notice of appeal as follows:-

“In all the circumstances the decision that the Tribunal of fact reached was one that no reasonable Tribunal, properly directed, on the evidence and the law, could have reached.”

Notwithstanding the provision of written submissions running to 22 pages, and having a full opportunity to make oral submissions on this ground of appeal at the hearing of the appeal, no argument has been advanced on behalf of Mr. McGregor relating to this ground. I will therefore treat it as having been abandoned.

The “new evidence”

7 . The notice of appeal, dated the 10 ^th March 2025, asserts that the verdict of the jury was unsafe given the “new evidence” which had “come to light” since the trial concluded. While the notice of appeal states that this new evidence “includes” the evidence of Ms. Samantha O'Reilly and Mr. Stephen Cummins, and later refers to an application to be made on behalf of Mr. McGregor seeking leave to adduce new evidence “grounded, inter alia, on affidavits sworn by the said witnesses Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins …”, no other witnesses are in fact named in the notice. The only other affidavit sworn in respect of the “new evidence” of Ms. O'Reilly and Mr. Cummins was (understandably) an affidavit sworn by Michael Staines, the solicitor for Mr. McGregor, the relevant contents of which I will later describe. There is no reference whatsoever in the notice of appeal to “new evidence” from any other witnesses. It is stated, at Ground E(d), that the evidence of Ms. O'Reilly and Mr. Cummins provides:-

“a plausible explanation for the bruising that was not available to the jury during the trial…”

8 . The relevant “bruising” is bruising to Ms. Hand's body which, it was asserted at the trial, had been inflicted during the course of her rape by Mr. McGregor and which constituted evidence of that alleged sexual assault.

9 . Importantly, it is nowhere asserted in the notice of appeal that the “new evidence” of either Ms. O'Reilly or Mr. Cummins is in any way dependent upon the admission of other evidence to support the testimony of these two new witnesses.

10 . Some weeks later, by motion dated the 4 ^th April 2025, Mr. McGregor's lawyers sought an order in the following terms:-

“An order pursuant to O. 86A, r. 4 of the Rules of the Superior Courts and/or pursuant to the discretion of this Honourable Court, permitting the appellant to adduce new evidence in this appeal which evidence is the evidence of Samantha O'Reilly and the evidence of Stephen Cummins as to what they witnessed on Monday, 10 December 2018 between the plaintiff/respondent and her then partner, Ste ( sic) Redmond, which is set out in their affidavit sworn on 14 ^th January 2025.”

11 . At the risk of stating the obvious...