Another legal setback for Conor McGregor came when the Court of Appeal in Dublin rejected his appeal of a High Court jury verdict in the case that Nikita Hand had initiated. Three senior judges dismissed all appeal grounds in July 2025, maintaining the earlier conclusion that McGregor had sexually assaulted Hand and was obligated to reimburse Hand for the costs and damages incurred. Hand attended the hearing with supporters; McGregor did not.
A jury in the initial civil case, which was resolved in late 2024, had mandated that McGregor pay more than €1.3 million in legal fees and about €250,000 in compensation. He denied creating the documented bruising and insisted that the meeting was consensual. McGregor’s appeal raised a number of substantive and procedural issues. The jury issue paper, which questioned jurors if he had “assaulted” Hand instead of “sexually assaulted” her specifically, was contested in one significant way.
| Item | Detail |
|---|---|
| Defendant | Conor McGregor |
| Plaintiff | Nikita Hand |
| Case Type | Civil lawsuit alleging sexual assault / rape |
| Court of Appeal Decision | Appeal dismissed entirely |
| Awarded Damages | Approximately €250,000 plus legal costs |
| Appeal Grounds | Jury wording, police interview admissions, new evidence |
| Withdrawn Evidence | Neighbors’ testimony dropped at appeal |
| Co‑Defendant | James Lawrence (also sued, lost cost claim) |
| Potential Further Appeal | Application filed to Supreme Court |
| Source |
Additionally, his defense team argued that McGregor’s frequent “no comment” answers during Garda (police) interrogation had unjustly swayed the jury. The judges of the appeal court, however, dismissed those claims. They concluded that McGregor’s attorneys had not demonstrated that there was a genuine risk of an unfair trial as a result of the inclusion of his police interview comments. Regarding the jury question language, the court determined that it was “simply unreal” to think that the jurors would have misconstrued “assault” in the context of a case involving sexual assault.
Adding testimony from his former neighbors, Samantha O’Reilly and Steven Cummins, who stated that they saw a domestic altercation between Hand and a former partner on the relevant night, was another aspect of McGregor’s appeal. However, before to the appeal hearing, his lawyers retracted that evidence petition. The court awarded Hand costs related to the withdrew application and characterized that action as “somewhat mysterious.”
After that, Hand spoke to the court about how the appeals process had “retraumatized” her. She conveyed gratitude for the assistance she got and urged other survivors to speak up. Her remarks emphasized the psychological toll that ongoing legal challenges take on victims of abuse. Even though the jury rejected his assault claim, James Lawrence, who was also sued by Hand and charged with McGregor’s crimes, lost some of his appeal as well. The appellate court refused his bid to recoup legal costs.
Following the failure of the appeal, McGregor has requested authorization to take the issue all the way to the Supreme Court of Ireland. His legal team contended that the appeal presents significant questions regarding the fairness of allowing particular testimony, the meaning of jury instructions, and the right to silence. The Supreme Court must first determine whether the case merits additional review or involves matters of public concern.
The way that high-profile sexual assault cases are handled outside of criminal procedures will be significantly impacted by this civil verdict. The civil action became the main venue for examining the events of December 2018 when Irish prosecutors declined to file criminal charges, alleging a lack of evidence.
Despite not carrying criminal penalties, civil judgments have reputational value and could affect future legal actions in circumstances similar to this one. Following the decision, McGregor released remarks refuting the accusations, asserting that Hand’s team had asked for settlement offers and that part of the evidence was untrue.
His public remarks have increased awareness of the relationship between legal responsibility, consent, and stardom. Several of McGregor’s business relationships and brands, including his whiskey and fighting-related endorsements, have experienced unintended effects, according to media reportage.
Legal experts evaluate the appeal court’s ruling by pointing out how strictly regulated procedural arguments—such as the language of jury instructions, the use of “no comment” admissions, and withdrawn evidence—can invoke more general notions of justice and fairness. The fact that the appellate court dismissed each objection shows that they thought the trial was conducted fairly and clearly enough.
