The High Court is set to assess damages owed to Nikita Hand by her former neighbours after they failed to respond to Hand’s claim for damages accusing them of abusing court processes by swearing “entirely concocted” evidence.
Samantha O’Reilly and Steven Cummins had been due to give evidence in McGregor’s appeal of a civil jury finding in favour of Hand, who sued the mixed martial arts fighter over alleged rape in a Dublin hotel. The jury awarded Hand damages of almost €250,000 over the incident at the Beacon Hotel, Sandyford on December 9th, 2018.
At the hearing of the McGregor’s Court of Appeal (CoA) challenge last July, an application to admit O’Reilly’s and Cummins’ written evidence was dramatically withdrawn.
McGregor, who denied raping Hand, had claimed that fresh evidence provided by O’Reilly and Cummins bolstered his insistence he was not responsible for bruising on Ms Hand’s body following the hotel assault.
READ MORE
The couple, who said they lived across from Hand, claimed to have witnessed from their address a physical altercation between Hand and her then-partner Stephen Redmond at their home on the night of December 9th, 2018.
Hand, in an affidavit, had strongly rejected the couple’s evidence.
Shortly after the three-judge CoA unanimously dismissed the appeal, Hand filed a lawsuit seeking damages against McGregor, O’Reilly and Cummins for “malicious abuse” of court processes.
Court documents filed on behalf of Hand claims the couple’s evidence was “entirely concocted” to advance McGregor’s interests. The papers further claim that O’Reilly and Cummins were not living across from Hand at the time of the purported incident referred to in the withdrawn evidence. McGregor is yet to respond to these claims.
On Monday, Judge Emily Egan granted judgment to Hand in default of appearance against O’Reilly and Cummins. She placed a stay on the orders for four weeks.
In High Court actions, solicitors for a defendant must file an “appearance” within a set time period if they intend to defend the action. McGregor’s solicitors, Mulholland Law, have entered an appearance in Hand’s case.
Siún Leonowicz, barrister for Hand instructed by Coleman Legal LLP, told the judge Hand’s case arose from the “conduct” of McGregor’s CoA appeal.
Leonowicz opened to the court documents showing proof of Hand’s lawyers’ service of the proceedings on O’Reilly and Cummins at their addresses last August. Counsel said Hand’s side had received no response from either defendant.
The documents show that O’Reilly and Cummins were served with court papers at an address in Cherry Orchard Green, Ballyfermot.
The judge granted an order for judgment in default of appearance against O’Reilly and Cummins, with the damages they owe to Hand to be assessed by the court at a later date.
The judge placed a stay on the orders for four weeks, allowing the defendants time to make an application to set aside the orders.
[ ‘I know what happened in that room’: the full story of the Conor McGregor caseOpens in new window ]
In documents filed to the court by Hand’s lawyers, it is claimed that McGregor then “maliciously” adopted the affidavits to undermine her reputation, and the jury’s finding in favour of her.
It is further claimed that McGregor advanced the evidence “without reasonable or probable cause and maliciously”, when he knew – or could have discovered with “reasonable enquiry” – that the evidence was false.
The papers state that “no clear explanation” was offered for the withdrawal of the evidence.
Following the CoA’s dismissal of his challenge to the jury finding, McGregor sought a further appeal to the Supreme Court. That court refused to hear McGregor’s appeal.
