Media personality Coleen Rooney racked up almost £2m in legal costs defending a libel claim against her in the High Court, court documents reveal.

The so-called ’Wagatha Christie’ saga concluded in 2022, when the High Court ruled in favour of Rooney, who had publicly accused fellow footballer’s wife Rebekah Vardy of leaking information about her to the media. Rooney had planted three false stories on her private Instagram account, which all ended up being printed in The Sun, before revealing that her sting operation had revealed Vardy’s account to be responsible.

Vardy denied the claim and sued Rooney for libel. The High Court found in Rooney’s favour and she was awarded 90% of her costs on the indemnity basis.

The women have returned to court over a dispute concerning Rooney’s claimed costs. Rooney’s costs claimed total £1,833,906.89. Vardy claims the bills contain ‘multiple claims’ which Rooney is not entitled to under the costs order. In court documents, Vardy said Rooney’s claimed costs ‘contain over £120,000…to which [Rooney] has no entitlement under the costs order’. 

In written submissions, Jamie Carpenter KC, for Vardy, said the overall fee-earner time spent on Rooney’s case ‘is the equivalent of one person working on the file for 2.4 hours a day every day (including weekends and bank holidays) from inception to conclusion’. He added: ‘When it comes to the line-by-line assessment, the court will have to consider whether it was reasonable for the partner at Brabners to stay at the Nobu Hotel (incurring substantial dinner and drinks charges as well as mini bar charges, all of which are claimed in the Bill) while lower grades of fee-earner had to make do with the West End DoubleTree.

‘The overall impression is of a Bill drawn without sufficient care and a “kitchen sink” approach to the inclusion of items, despite the Bill apparently having taken 172 hours to draft and the partner and senior associate spending 19 hours reviewing various drafts.’

Rooney argued that Vardy’s conduct meant ‘significant additional costs were required to be incurred’. Rooney claims Vardy’s ‘argument appears to arise from her frustration that her deplorable conduct in this litigation has led to the budgets becoming irrelevant’.

Robin Dunne, for Rooney, said in written submissions: ‘It is unsurprising that indemnity basis costs were ordered in these circumstances. C’s conduct clearly made this case extremely unusual and very much “out of the norm” for libel claims,’ court documents stated.

Dunne added: ‘This was a libel claim which [Vardy] chose to launch, despite knowing that the Instagram post was true. [Vardy] refused to engage with [Rooney] to try and avoid these proceedings and by her conduct meant that significant additional costs were required to be incurred by [Rooney].

‘[Vardy]’s solicitors and counsel were faced with an opponent in a claim of the very highest profile, who was destroying evidence, withholding evidence, filing untruthful statement summaries from witnesses and refusing to be truthful at trial. It is testament to her legal team that despite this, they were able to successfully defend the claim in these extreme circumstances.

‘It sits ill in [Vardy]’s mouth to now claim that [Rooney]’s costs, a great deal of which were caused directly by her conduct, are unreasonable.’

Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker, sitting in the Royal Courts of Justice, will be dealing with the preliminary issues raised by Vardy. Rooney’s bill of costs is to be assessed in a line-by-line assessment.

Jamie Carpenter KC represents Rebekah Vardy and Robin Dunne represents Coleen Rooney.

This article is closed for comment.