logo
Conor McGregor to be sued again by Nikita Hand after failed appeal

Conor McGregor to be sued again by Nikita Hand after failed appeal

Daily Mirror18 hours ago
It comes a day after McGregor lost his appeal following a civil ruling that the former dual-weight UFC champion sexually assaulted Nikita Hand after a night out in December 2018
Conor McGregor is set to be sued again by Nikita Hand for his alleged abuse of the courts process.
On Thursday, the former dual-weight UFC champion lost his appeal against a civil jury's finding in favour of Ms Hand - who accused of rape. McGregor lost his appeal on all five grounds that the case was taken. Ms Hand successfully sued McGregor in a civil court over an incident in which he was alleged to have 'brutally raped and battered' her in a penthouse at a south Dublin hotel in December 2018.
Ms Hand was awarded £214,994 in damages and McGregor was also ordered to pay about £1.1million in legal costs following November's trial. McGregor then launched an appeal on five grounds. On Thursday, the three judges of the Court of Appeal – Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, Mr Justice Brian O'Moore and Mr Justice Patrick MacGrath – agreed to dismiss his appeal in its entirety. Neither McGregor nor his co-defendant James Lawrence were present in court on Thursday.
Just a day on after losing his appeal, Ms Hand is suing McGregor once again. According to the Irish Mirror, the Dublin native is also suing couple Samantha O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins, who were withdrawn as witnesses at the final moment of the fighter's appeal.
In a comment to The Irish Mirror, Hand's solicitors stated: "We confirm that further proceedings have been issued in the High Court and a Statement of claims has been prepared and will be served imminently." The outlet reports that the case against McGregor, Ms O'Reilly and Stephen Cummins are "for damaged for malicious abuse of the process of the court by the Defendants, and each of them, their respective servants and/or agents. She is suing for aggravated and punitive damages as well as costs."
After agreeing to dismiss the Irishman's appeal in its entirety, Mr Justice O'Moore summarised the grounds for appeal before dismissing all five grounds. 'I therefore dismiss the appeal in its entirety,' he said. The judges also dismissed McGregor's co-defendant James Lawrence's appeal against the trial judge's decision not to award him his legal costs, after the same jury did not find he had assaulted Ms Hand. The judges raised the fact that McGregor had paid Mr Lawrence's legal fees and said the arrangement was 'shrouded in mystery'.
Mr Justice O'Moore said that while it would not be 'fair or appropriate' not to award Mr Lawrence costs because it would 'wipe out' damages awarded to Ms Hand, as argued by her legal team, he said if costs were awarded to Mr Lawrence and he did not pass them on to McGregor, it would result in a 'bounty of several hundred thousand euros for his troubles." He also said the impact of awarding costs to Mr Lawrence and them being passed on to McGregor should be taken into account, before dismissing Mr Lawrence's appeal.
Ms Hand, who was embraced by her supporters in the courtroom after the judgment was delivered, thanked her legal team, the Rape Crisis Centre, and the three judges. 'I'm also deeply grateful for everyone who supported me and those who believed in me and stood by my side throughout this case,' she said outside court.
'This appeal has retraumatised me over and over again (by) being forced to relive it, what happened has had a huge impact on me. To every survivor out there, I know how hard it is but please don't be silenced. You deserve to be heard, you also deserve justice. Today I can finally move on and try to heal." She said she did not have a message for McGregor as she left the Four Courts.
When is Conor McGregor's next fight?
Recently, US President Donald Trump announced his plans to host a historic UFC event at the White House in July 2026. Following this announcement, McGregor revealed his interest in competing at the event.
The 37-year-old took to social media and posted: "Happy 4th of July, USA. Excited with President Trump announcing a UFC fight event at the White House! I would be honoured! Count me in!!" UFC boss Dana White also appears to support the idea after McGregor shared a conversation with him.
The Irishman sent the UFC chief several voice notes, seemingly related to the proposed White House event, to which White responded: "I love it!" McGregor later reiterated his comments during a recent BKFC event, stating: "It's looking like I'm headed to the Oval Office again. That's where I'm headed next." The 37-year-old has not fought since losing to Dustin Poirier back in 2021. He was due to make a stunning comeback last year against Michael Chandler, but withdrew from the contest after picking up an injury in training.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions
Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions

Scotsman

time11 hours ago

  • Scotsman

Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions

Millions of drivers were hoping for a payout over secret car finance charges ⚖️ Sign up to the weekly Cost Of Living newsletter. Saving tips, deals and money hacks. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to Edinburgh News, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Supreme Court rules lenders not liable for 'hidden' car finance commission payments Decision overturns Court of Appeal ruling that had backed drivers' right to compensation Around 2m cars a year are bought on finance, many with now-banned commission deals FCA to decide within six weeks if it will set up a central compensation scheme Tens of thousands of complaints remain on hold until the watchdog makes its move A landmark ruling made today (August 1) has determined whether millions of motorists are entitled to compensation over 'hidden' commissions on car finance deals. The case centres on hire-purchase agreements signed before 2021, where car dealers acting as credit brokers received commission from lenders — without fully informing the customer. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In October 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that these undisclosed payments were unlawful and that affected drivers should be compensated. The case was brought by three motorists who were unaware dealers were being paid by lenders for arranging their finance. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court, calling it an 'egregious error'. New and secondhand cars for sale on a dealership forecourt in Ellesmere Port in 2023 (Photo:) | Getty Images The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also weighed in, arguing the earlier judgment 'goes too far'. But the three motorists had fought to uphold the original ruling. The Supreme Court's decision will have major implications for car finance customers across the UK. But what exactly did it rule, and is there compensation coming down the road for millions of drivers? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What is car finance? Around two million cars are bought on finance every year — but many drivers may have unknowingly paid too much in interest due to now-banned commission deals between lenders and dealerships. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) gave sales staff a financial incentive to hike up your interest rate, leaving you with a higher monthly bill. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) banned these deals in 2021, but it's now deciding whether affected drivers should be compensated. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the meantime, tens of thousands of complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman or through the courts were paused while the watchdog reviewed the issue. What has the Supreme Court ruled? Millions of motorists will miss out on potential compensation after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments made to car dealers as part of finance agreements. The UK's highest court overturned a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal, which had found that 'secret' commission deals — made before 2021 without the customer's fully informed consent — were unlawful. The Supreme Court sided with the lenders. Delivering the decision, Lord Reed said the appeals were allowed, ending hopes of a wider compensation scheme for millions of car finance customers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Is there compensation coming? As of now, compensation is not guaranteed, but it's still possible, depending on what the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) decides next. Though the Supreme Court's ruling on sided with the lenders, meaning they are not automatically liable for hidden commission payments - a blow to many compensation hopes - the FCA is still investigating whether drivers were treated unfairly. The FCA has said it will announce within six weeks of the ruling whether it plans to pursue a central compensation scheme. If it does go ahead, it will consult on the details for another six weeks — including who qualifies, how compensation would be calculated, and what years it would cover. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Are you struggling to make ends meet as costs continue to rise? You can now send your stories to us online via YourWorld at It's free to use and, once checked, your story will appear on our website and, space allowing, in our newspapers.

Miscarriage of justice watchdog investigates cases of 175 people handed abolished indefinite jail terms
Miscarriage of justice watchdog investigates cases of 175 people handed abolished indefinite jail terms

The Independent

time11 hours ago

  • The Independent

Miscarriage of justice watchdog investigates cases of 175 people handed abolished indefinite jail terms

The country's miscarriage of justice watchdog is investigating at least 175 cases which saw offenders, including children and young people, handed abolished indefinite jail terms. The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has announced it has launched a major project to review applications from prisoners languishing on Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) jail terms. The open-ended sentences, which were scrapped in 2012 and have been described as 'psychological torture' by the UN, have left thousands trapped in jail for up to 22 times longer than their original tariff. This includes many who were children at the time of their offence and handed a type of IPP sentence for under-18s called a Detention for Public Protection (DPP) jail term. Now scores of cases are set to be reviewed by the watchdog after a string of IPP and DPP sentences were overturned by the Court of Appeal. Eight of 12 cases referred to the appeal judges for review have resulted in the sentences being quashed, reduced or substituted. This includes father-of-three Leighton Williams, who was wrongly handed an IPP sentence with a 30-month tariff for a drunken fight aged 19. He served almost 16 years under the sentence – mostly in custody – before it was quashed and replaced with a five-year determinate sentence in the Court of Appeal last year. If he had served half of that time in custody, he would have been out of prison by the time he was 22. Three appeal judges finally set him free on 9 May last year, aged 36, after finding the original sentencing judge had wrongly counted a previous offence, committed when he was 17, against him. After he was released, he told The Independent the jail term had robbed him of 16 years, adding: 'I have missed out on growing up with my friends. Going out. Getting a trade, being able to work. Just living a normal life. 'I deserved to go to jail – I understand that. There is no doubt about that. But for the length of time – I don't think you can justify that.' In a similar ruling in October, Darren Hilling's IPP sentence was quashed and substituted because the sentencing judge had failed to attach the necessary importance to his age and maturity when he committed his crime aged 21. Other victims of the scandal, whose tragic cases have been highlighted by The Independent, include: Leroy Douglas, who has served almost 20 years for robbing a mobile phone; Thomas White, 42, who set himself alight in his cell and has served 13 years for stealing a phone; and Abdullahi Suleman, 41, who is still inside 19 years after he was jailed for a laptop robbery. At total of 2,486 IPP prisoners were still languishing in overcrowded prisons without a release date at end of June. Almost 700 of them have served at least ten years longer than their original tariff. At least 94 IPP prisoners have taken their own lives in prison as they lose hope of getting out, according to campaigners. The CCRC project will see the body – tasked with independently reviewing alleged miscarriages of justice – consider up to eight current applications from people serving IPP and DPP sentences, before systematically re-reviewing a backlog of 175 historic applications to see if they should be referred to the Court of Appeal in light of the recent judgments. 'This starts with young people principally because that's where the chink of light is from the Court of Appeal,' CCRC chair Dame Vera Baird told The Independent. Reviews will start with those who were handed indefinite jail terms as children, before looking at those aged 18 to 25, followed by those over 25. This is because sentencing judges may have considered previous convictions as children when they handed out the jail terms to adults. However there is no timeline for the wide-ranging review and Dame Vera warned the CCRC has been allocated no additional resources for the project. The news has been welcomed by campaigners, including the Howard League for Penal Reform, which this summer called for a special CCRC process for IPP prisoners in a major report on the jail term. Other recommendations put forward in the report, including seeing all remaining prisoners given a release date to work towards at their next Parole Review, are being considered by the government. Their director of campaigns Andrew Neilson said he was thrilled to see the CCRC take this 'hugely positive' step, adding: 'Justice is long overdue to the thousands of people serving IPP sentences in prisons and in the community, and we hope that this will be one of many similar policies that will finally end the suffering of this abolished sentence for good.'

Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions
Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions

Scotsman

time11 hours ago

  • Scotsman

Supreme Court blocks car finance payouts for millions

Millions of drivers were hoping for a payout over secret car finance charges ⚖️ Sign up to the weekly Cost Of Living newsletter. Saving tips, deals and money hacks. Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Supreme Court rules lenders not liable for 'hidden' car finance commission payments Decision overturns Court of Appeal ruling that had backed drivers' right to compensation Around 2m cars a year are bought on finance, many with now-banned commission deals FCA to decide within six weeks if it will set up a central compensation scheme Tens of thousands of complaints remain on hold until the watchdog makes its move A landmark ruling made today (August 1) has determined whether millions of motorists are entitled to compensation over 'hidden' commissions on car finance deals. The case centres on hire-purchase agreements signed before 2021, where car dealers acting as credit brokers received commission from lenders — without fully informing the customer. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In October 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that these undisclosed payments were unlawful and that affected drivers should be compensated. The case was brought by three motorists who were unaware dealers were being paid by lenders for arranging their finance. Two lenders, FirstRand Bank and Close Brothers, challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court, calling it an 'egregious error'. New and secondhand cars for sale on a dealership forecourt in Ellesmere Port in 2023 (Photo:) | Getty Images The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) also weighed in, arguing the earlier judgment 'goes too far'. But the three motorists had fought to uphold the original ruling. The Supreme Court's decision will have major implications for car finance customers across the UK. But what exactly did it rule, and is there compensation coming down the road for millions of drivers? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad What is car finance? Around two million cars are bought on finance every year — but many drivers may have unknowingly paid too much in interest due to now-banned commission deals between lenders and dealerships. These so-called discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) gave sales staff a financial incentive to hike up your interest rate, leaving you with a higher monthly bill. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) banned these deals in 2021, but it's now deciding whether affected drivers should be compensated. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the meantime, tens of thousands of complaints made to the Financial Ombudsman or through the courts were paused while the watchdog reviewed the issue. What has the Supreme Court ruled? Millions of motorists will miss out on potential compensation after the Supreme Court ruled that lenders are not liable for hidden commission payments made to car dealers as part of finance agreements. The UK's highest court overturned a previous ruling by the Court of Appeal, which had found that 'secret' commission deals — made before 2021 without the customer's fully informed consent — were unlawful. The Supreme Court sided with the lenders. Delivering the decision, Lord Reed said the appeals were allowed, ending hopes of a wider compensation scheme for millions of car finance customers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Is there compensation coming? As of now, compensation is not guaranteed, but it's still possible, depending on what the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) decides next. Though the Supreme Court's ruling on sided with the lenders, meaning they are not automatically liable for hidden commission payments - a blow to many compensation hopes - the FCA is still investigating whether drivers were treated unfairly. The FCA has said it will announce within six weeks of the ruling whether it plans to pursue a central compensation scheme. If it does go ahead, it will consult on the details for another six weeks — including who qualifies, how compensation would be calculated, and what years it would cover. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store