Readers like you keep news free for everyone.

More than 5,000 readers have already pitched in to keep free access to The Journal.

For the price of one cup of coffee each week you can help keep paywalls away.

Support us today
Not now
Friday 1 December 2023 Dublin: -2°C
UK High Court

Wagatha Christie: Rebekah Vardy ordered to pay £1.5m towards Coleen Rooney's legal costs

Vardy will have to pay £800,000 of the costs bill by 4pm on 15 November.

REBEKAH VARDY WILL have to pay about £1.5 million towards Coleen Rooney’s legal costs after losing the “Wagatha Christie” High Court case she brought against her fellow footballer’s wife.

Vardy, 40, lost her high-profile libel claim against Rooney, 36, in July when Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that Rooney’s viral social media post accusing Vardy of leaking her private information to the press was “substantially true”.

In an order made public on Tuesday, the judge ruled that Vardy should pay 90% of Rooney’s costs.

Rooney incurred total costs of more than £2 million, but £350,000 of those had already been racked up before the trial in May, so those were removed to produce a final figure of £1,667,860.

Vardy was ordered to pay £800,000 of the costs bill by 4pm on 15 November.

She will also have to pay costs incurred by seven journalists who were potential witnesses but did not give evidence – apart from a portion of their costs which Rooney has already been ordered to pay.

The judge ruled on various issues relating to Rooney’s costs after receiving written legal arguments on behalf of both women.

The total amount of  Vardy’s legal costs is not known, but is expected to be of a similar level to those incurred by Rooney.

Mrs Justice Steyn said there were certain issues which arose during the week-long trial which justified the reduction of 10% in the amount Vardy has to pay, including Rooney’s “weak” allegation that Vardy was one of the people behind The Sun’s “Secret Wag” gossip column, and Rooney’s unsuccessful public interest defence.

“However, given the defendant’s success on the defence of truth which was at the heart of this claim, and the degree to which there was overlap between the issues, I consider that the appropriate reduction is 10%,” the judge said.

Vardy had argued for a reduction to 80%, while Rooney contended there should be no reduction at all.

The final figure of costs Vardy has to pay may be reduced further if she does not agree to pay the total incurred by Rooney and, at a later date, a court considers some of those costs to have been unreasonable.

Mrs Justice Steyn also decided the costs should be assessed on an indemnity, rather than a standard basis – a decision which is more favourable to Rooney in terms of the amount of her legal bill she can recover.

The judge said she was “wholly unpersuaded” by arguments put forward by Rooney’s legal team that she should do so because of Vardy’s “approach to settlement” or interviews she has given since the ruling in July.

But the judge cited other issues, including her finding in the ruling that Vardy and her former agent Caroline Watt had “deliberately deleted or destroyed evidence”.

She said in the order: “In my judgment, what takes this case out of the norm in a way which compels the conclusion that I should make an order for indemnity costs is that in my judgment following the trial I found that the claimant, and also her former agent, had deliberately deleted or destroyed evidence.

“Even if, as the claimant contends I should, I were to disregard the actions of the claimant’s former agent on the basis that it was not put to the claimant that she procured the disposal of the phone and I made no such finding, the point remains that I found the claimant deliberately deleted or destroyed evidence.

“Such behaviour is outside the ordinary and reasonable conduct of proceedings. In all the circumstances, I consider it appropriate to order the claimant to pay costs on the indemnity basis.”

In the viral social media post in October 2019 at the heart of the libel claim, Rooney said she had carried out a months-long “sting operation” and accused Vardy of leaking information about her private life to the press.

Rooney publicly claimed Vardy’s account was the source behind three stories in The Sun newspaper featuring fake details she had posted on her private Instagram profile – featuring her travelling to Mexico for a “gender selection” procedure, her planning to return to TV, and the basement flooding at her home.

Following the high-profile trial, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled in Rooney’s favour, finding it was “likely” that Watt had passed information to The Sun and that Vardy “knew of and condoned this behaviour”.

The judge added that Vardy had “actively” engaged, “directing Ms Watt to the private Instagram account, sending her screenshots of Mrs Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press via Ms Watt”.

Press Association
Your Voice
Readers Comments
This is YOUR comments community. Stay civil, stay constructive, stay on topic. Please familiarise yourself with our comments policy here before taking part.
Leave a Comment
    Submit a report
    Please help us understand how this comment violates our community guidelines.
    Thank you for the feedback
    Your feedback has been sent to our team for review.

    Leave a commentcancel