Judge rules in Rebekah Vardy's favour in first stage of libel case
A judge has said Coleen Rooney's post clearly identified Vardy as guilty
Last updated 20th Nov 2020
A judge has ruled in favour of Rebekah Vardy in the first part of the libel case between her and Coleen Rooney.
Coleen Rooney accused Rebekah Vardy of leaking stories about her private life to the media, today the High Court judge ruled that the posts identified Vardy as guilty of the leaks.
Mrs Rooney's team said that the social media posts were directing guilt at Mrs Vardy's account, not Mrs Vardy herself, but the judge dismissed that.
Mr Justice Warby also ordered Mrs Rooney to pay Mrs Vardy just under £23,000 in costs for the hearing.
What happened between Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy?
Mrs Rooney, 34, accused Mrs Vardy, 38, of leaking “false stories” about her private life to the media last October after carrying out a months-long “sting operation” which saw her dubbed “Wagatha Christie”.
The wife of former England star Wayne Rooney claimed fellow footballer’s wife Mrs Vardy shared fake stories she had posted on her personal Instagram account with The Sun newspaper.
Mrs Rooney wrote on Instagram and Twitter: “I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them.
“It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.”
Mrs Vardy, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, denies the accusations and is suing Mrs Rooney for damages for libel.
What was the judgement about today?
In a judgment today (Friday) Mr Justice Warby ruled that the “natural and ordinary” meaning of Mrs Rooney’s posts was that Mrs 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”.
Announcing his decision, the judge said that the meaning he had determined was “substantially the same as the claimant’s meaning”.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Warby said Mrs Rooney’s message was “a considered post, using wording composed with some care”, adding: “It would be clear to the ordinary reader from the outset that it was meant seriously, and intended to convey a message of some importance.”
What was Coleen Rooney arguing?
It was Mrs Rooney’s contention that she simply referred to Mrs Vardy’s Instagram account, rather than Mrs Vardy herself.
The judge rejected that idea: “I certainly do not think that the ordinary reader would take that single word (account), albeit repeated, to indicate that Mrs Rooney remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was.”
He added: “There is nothing in these words, apart from the word ‘account’, that in any way suggests that the behaviour of which Mrs Rooney is complaining might have been carried out by anyone other than the account holder, Mrs Vardy.”
What happens next?
The court heard both Mrs Vardy and Mrs Rooney had agreed for a “stay” of the proceedings until February, so there could be “one final attempt to resolve the matter without the need for a full trial”.