'Wagatha Christie': Vardy facing 'monstrous' costs bill after libel claim dismissed

Rebekah Vardy has lost her high-profile libel claim against fellow footballer’s wife Coleen Rooney, as the High Court today ruled on the so-called ‘Wagatha Christie’ case.

Vardy, wife of Leicester City striker Jamie, sued Rooney – whose husband is England’s record goalscorer Wayne – after Rooney conducted a ‘sting operation’ to find out who was apparently leaking fake stories to The Sun newspaper.

Rooney planted three false stories on her private Instagram account, all of which ended up being printed in the tabloid, and then tweeted that ‘just one person’ had seen the posts on her private account, adding: ‘It’s ………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’

At a seven-day trial in May, Rooney’s lawyers alleged that Vardy had an ‘habitual and established practice’ of leaking information to The Sun and the court heard that potentially key evidence was lost – when a phone belonging to Vardy’s agent Caroline Watt’s was dropped in the North Sea.

Vardy claimed that she suffered ‘very serious harm to her reputation’ as a result of the viral post, while Rooney defended it on the basis it was ‘substantially true’.

Mrs Justice Steyn today ruled that Rooney had established the truth of the meaning previously found by the court, namely that ‘Ms Vardy had regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower of Ms Rooney’s personal Instagram account by secretly informing The Sun newspaper of Ms Rooney’s private posts and stories’.

The judge ruled that Vardy ‘was party to the disclosure to The Sun’ of eight posts – two of which were part of Rooney’s ‘sting operation’ – via Watt and that she ‘knew of and condoned this behaviour’.

‘Having regard to the evidence that is available, and my conclusions regarding the evidence which is missing, it is appropriate to draw an inference that Ms Vardy and Ms Watt together leaked more information from [Rooney’s] private Instagram account over the course of 2017-2019 than that which is contained in the eight posts to which I have referred,’ she added.

Steyn also found that ‘it is likely that Ms Vardy deliberately deleted her WhatsApp chat with Ms Watt and that Ms Watt deliberately dropped her phone in the sea’, ruling that the reasons they gave for their original WhatsApp chat being unavailable ‘are each improbable’.

Rooney said in a statement: ‘Naturally, I am pleased that the judge has found in my favour with her judgment today. It was not a case I ever sought or wanted. I never believed it should have gone to court at such expense in times of hardship for so many people when the money could have been far better spent helping others.’

She added: ‘Although I bear Mrs Vardy no ill-will, today’s judgment makes clear that I was right in what I said in my posts of October 2019.’

Vardy said in a statement: ‘I am extremely sad and disappointed at the decision that the judge has reached. It is not the result that I had expected, nor believe was just. I brought this action to vindicate my reputation and am devastated by the judge’s finding.’

She added: ‘As I explained in my evidence I, my family and even my unborn baby were subjected to disgusting messages and vile abuse following Coleen’s post and these have continued even during the course of the trial. Please can the people who have been abusing me and my family now stop. The case is over.’

Alex Vakil, a media partner at RPC, commented: ‘While the case does not throw up any new or novel areas of law, it serves as a timely reminder of the inherent risks in hard-fought litigation between high-profile individuals, particularly when parties are subjected to robust cross-examination.

‘Ms Vardy as claimant was subjected to three days of cross-examination which touched on various aspects of her private life. Had she succeeded, this ordeal might have been worth it. Instead, Ms Vardy is left to settle what is likely to be a monstrous legal costs bill. The experience of Ms Vardy may serve as a warning to other future litigants considering embarking on such action.’

Jeffrey Smele, partner at Simons Muirhead Burton, said: 'Like the post at the heart of the case, this was a classic whodunnit - with little dispute about complex legal issues. The judge found that on the evidence (or what remained of it that hadn’t been wilfully destroyed) it was likely that Mrs Vardy had passed stories to journalists or had condoned that happening, so Mrs Rooney’s detective work was proved solid. It should not be lost that the judge refused attempts to compel journalists to participate in the case and provide their material, and she also emphasised that, even though she lost, the sort of appalling online treatment that Mrs Vardy received from trolls will not be tolerated.'

Jack Ridgway, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, said Vardy and Rooney could end up arguing over costs for as long as two years. ‘There will be negotiations and, if they don’t agree to settle, a specialist judge in the Senior Courts Costs Office will eventually look in detail at the bill and decide what is reasonable and proportionate to make Mrs Vardy pay,’ he said.

‘This approach means that, just because Mrs Rooney has agreed to pay her lawyers a certain amount, the judge won’t necessarily order Mrs Vardy to cover all of it – it is, in fact, rare for a winning party to recover all of their legal costs. As a generalisation, winning parties recover about 70% of their costs.’

He added: ‘Given the money at stake, this is unlikely to be a quick process, even if an agreement can be reached before having to argue the bill in court. So while the libel trial has now concluded, the parties may spend another two years litigating about its costs.’

Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori QC, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP, appeared for Vardy;  David Sherborne and Ben Hamer, instructed by Brabners LLP, for Rooney. 

This article is now closed for comment.