The Court of Appeal has dismissed Conor McGregor’s appeal against a jury’s finding that he assaulted Nikita Ní Laimhín and its award of €248,603.60 in damages. The court also ordered McGregor to pay Ní Laimhín’s costs relating to two motions to introduce fresh evidence, on a legal practitioner and own client basis, regardless of the outcome of the rest of the appeal.
The jury’s verdict followed a 12-day High Court trial in November 2024. It found for Ní Laimhín on her claim against McGregor and awarded €60,000 in general damages and €188,603.60 in special damages. It awarded no aggravated or exemplary damages. The jury answered “no” on the claim against the second defendant, James Lawrence; the Court of Appeal said that answer could have more than one interpretation and did not establish an inconsistency with its finding against McGregor.
McGregor challenged the wording of the question put to the jury, the admission of evidence about his “no comment” answers in a Garda interview, his counsel’s ability to cross-examine, and parts of the trial judge’s directions. The Court of Appeal found the jury had been clearly directed that the assault at issue was Ní Laimhín’s allegation that McGregor raped her. It rejected the argument that the damages award showed the jury misunderstood the question.
The appeal court accepted that the trial judge’s stated basis for permitting questioning about the “no comment” answers was mistaken. But it concluded that the judge’s repeated directions to the jury, including that the answers were not evidence of rape and could not support an adverse inference, prevented a real risk of an unfair trial. The court dismissed that ground and the challenges concerning cross-examination and the jury charge.
McGregor abandoned his fresh-evidence grounds on the first day of the appeal hearing. The proposed evidence included affidavits from Samantha O’Reilly and Stephen Cummins about events they said they witnessed at Ní Laimhín’s home in December 2018, and a preliminary report from Professor Jack Crane about the timing and nature of injuries. The appeal court did not admit or determine the truth of that proposed evidence. It said the motions were abandoned before the witnesses’ accounts could be tested and ordered McGregor to pay Ní Laimhín’s costs for both motions on the stated basis.
The court dismissed the appeal in its entirety. This was an appeal judgment, not a new trial of the underlying allegations.