Nikita Hand has been awarded costs in her civil action against Conor McGregor, after a jury found she had been raped by the mixed martial arts fighter in Dublin six years ago.
A judge in the High Court also ruled that James Lawrence, from whom she also sought damages for assault, but lost, cannot claim his legal costs against her.
Ms Hand, who accused the sportsman of raping her in a Dublin hotel in December 2018, won her claim against him for damages in a case last month.
The costs of the case, which ran for some three weeks, are estimated to be more than one million euro (£829,000).
The ruling means that Ms Hand and Mr Lawrence will pay their own costs in relation to the claim against him.
Mr McGregor, however, will have to pay the full costs relating to his side of the case, which will include Ms Hand’s costs relating to the claim against him.
The judges’ ruling on Thursday means that Ms Hand will pay the bill relating to costs in dealing with her claim against Mr Lawrence only.
Mr Justice Alexander Owens said the costs were made on a normal party-party basis, and not on the higher solicitor and client costs.
Justice Owens said that he made the decision after the defence put forward by Mr McGregor relied on what Mr Lawrence claimed had happened on the day and night of the incident.
He was it was a “most singular and peculiar” case.
He told the court that the story put forward by both defendants ran in “lock step” with each other, and the finding by the jury that Mr Lawrence had not assaulted Ms Hand was because they did not believe he had consensual sex with Ms Hand after Mr McGregor left the hotel.
Ms Hand, 35, from Dublin, was awarded almost 250,000 euro (£207,000) in damages against Mr McGregor, after a three-week civil trial last month.
Ms Hand had been seeking about 660,000 euro for relocation costs as well as costs for loss of future and previous earnings.
Justice Owens said both men were represented by the same firm of solicitors, and that Mr McGregor was footing the bill for Mr Lawrence, who he said was of modest means.
He said that there was one narrative from both of them.
Justice Owens also said it was difficult to see how there would be separate legal costs in respect of solicitors for both men.
He said he did not agree that the damages awarded by the jury cast any light on the jury’s decision, and said the jury were told not to double count and to be moderate.
He further said that the jury’s decision not to award aggravated and exemplary damages to Ms Hand did not cast any doubt on their findings.
The court was told that Mr Lawrence had, under the Legal Services Regulation Act, been successful in defending his claim by Ms Hand, but not for the reasons advanced by his defence.
Justice Owens also raised a number of social media posts made by Mr McGregor after the jury’s verdict.
He said that any social media posts that attack the integrity of the jury cannot be tolerated and that Mr McGregor’s posts were “highly irresponsible”.
He said he would deal with them another day and had not yet decided what to do about them, and whether to institute proceedings against Mr McGregor which could result in contempt of court.
He said this could result in a fine, adding that the sportsman is a very rich man and could afford to pay a fine.
Justice Owens also said that it was quite apparent to the jury that the evidence of Ms Hand could not sit with the evidence put forward by Mr McGregor.
He said they were faced with a stark choice, adding that if Ms Hand was telling the truth about Mr McGregor, it was more than inconceivable Mr Lawrence could have sex with her.
“There was no middle ground,” Justice Owens added.
The judge put a stay on all the orders until January 16.
Remy Farrell SC, for Mr McGregor, said that the ruling is likely to be appealed against.
Earlier, a lawyer for Ms Hand urged the High Court judge to order Mr McGregor to pay the entire costs of her civil action.
John Gordon SC, for Ms Hand, said the conduct of Mr McGregor before, during and after the trial warranted him paying the entire costs of the proceedings.
Mr Gordon told Justice Owens that he had a wide discretion in awarding costs against Mr McGregor.
The court was urged to take into consideration that Mr McGregor had, after the verdict, made a series of social media posts in which he described the court as a “kangaroo court”.
Mr Gordon said this was a “direct insult” to the jury.
He also said that the “direct criticism” of the jury should not go unremarked and should be considered as part of costs.
Justice Owens said it was “most unsatisfactory” that a litigant would attack the jury and accused them of disregarding the court rules.
Mr Gordon said that as the jury found against Mr McGregor, it shows that they did not believe Mr Lawrence.
He further said that Mr McGregor was verbally abusive of Ms Hand in the court, which he said stopped the court “in its tracks”.
“He used vitriol as a weapon to intimidate my client. The court should not tolerate that,” Mr Gordon added.
However, Mr Farrell rejected the application, saying that the court does not have a wide discretion, as asserted by Mr Gordon, to award costs.
He said it should be done in the normal way, that costs the event.
Mr Farrell said the suggestion that the verdict meant that the jury rejected all of the evidence by Mr McGregor and Mr Lawrence was “wholly incorrect” and “incorrect characterisation” of the evidence.
John Fitzgerald SC, for Mr Lawrence, said his client was not involved in some “grand conspiracy theory” against Ms Hand and said the court was being asked to become the 13th juror in the case.
