Rebekah Vardy is ordered to pay rival Coleen Rooney around £25k in legal fees amid High Court battle

Coleen Rooney has scored another Wagatha Christie victory as Rebekah Vardy has been ordered to pay around £25k of her legal fees amid ongoing High Court battle.

It’s a further blow to the DOI star’s long-running £1million libel suit against Coleen, who last week claimed a 2-1 victory in the latest round of their fight after a judge rejected Rebekah’s bid to remove substantial parts of Coleen’s defense relating to her rival’s dealings with The Sun newspaper and its column The Secret Wag.

Judge Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that such dealings could be a relevant part of her defence of libel action brought by Rebekah following the leaking of Coleen’s private Instagram posts to The Sun in 2019, which she denies.

Coleen's glee: Coleen Rooney has scored another Wagatha Christie victory as Rebekah Vardy has been ordered to pay around £25k of her legal fees amid ongoing High Court battle (pictured last week)

Coleen's glee: Coleen Rooney has scored another Wagatha Christie victory as Rebekah Vardy has been ordered to pay around £25k of her legal fees amid ongoing High Court battle (pictured last week)

Coleen’s glee: Coleen Rooney has scored another Wagatha Christie victory as Rebekah Vardy has been ordered to pay around £25k of her legal fees amid ongoing High Court battle (pictured last week) 

Coleen’s legal team compared the win to a ‘2-1 victory in the semi-final’ and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn. 

A source said: ‘Coleen’s legal team will present further evidence concerning Rebekah Vardy’s dealing with The Sun and links with The Secret WAG.

‘There are lot of people with knowledge of her long term relationship with the newspaper and how it worked.

‘Last week’s ruling could open a Pandora’s Box for Rebekah.’  

Last week’s judgement was a pre-trial procedural decision on which parts of the defence presented by Coleen will be included in the case if it goes to a full libel trial at the High Court, expected to be in September. 

Coleen’s legal team compared the win to a “2-1 victory in the semi-final” and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn (pictured in 2016)

Coleen’s legal team compared the win to a “2-1 victory in the semi-final” and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn (pictured in 2016)

Coleen’s legal team compared the win to a ‘2-1 victory in the semi-final’ and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn (pictured in 2016) 

The long-running feud between the high-profile WAGS erupted after Coleen revealed that she had set a trap to see who was responsible for the leaks, which earned her the nickname Wagatha Christie. 

Coleen famously wrote: ‘I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’ 

Soon after, Rebekah took to social media to deny being the person who had leaked the stories to the press, after Coleen’s post went viral. 

The long-running feud between the high-profile WAGS erupted after Coleen revealed that she had set a trap to see who was responsible for the leaks, which earned her the nickname Wagatha Christie

The long-running feud between the high-profile WAGS erupted after Coleen revealed that she had set a trap to see who was responsible for the leaks, which earned her the nickname Wagatha Christie

The long-running feud between the high-profile WAGS erupted after Coleen revealed that she had set a trap to see who was responsible for the leaks, which earned her the nickname Wagatha Christie 

Rebekah’s team launched a bid last month to have large parts of Coleen’s defence in the ongoing libel case struck out. 

Rebekah’s barrister Hugh Tomlinson QC told Mrs Justice Steyn: ‘The purpose of this application is to clear away a mass of irrelevant and peripheral material in order to save time and costs and focus on the main issues in the case.’ 

But Rebekah’s move was branded a ‘tactical exercise’ to avoid having to disclose matters which will prove Coleen’s case is correct, according to her own lawyer David Sherborne. 

‘Wagatha Christie’ trial could cost £1million

The Wagatha Christie libel trial could last nearly two weeks and cost almost £1m, the High Court heard.

Dashing any hopes of a last-minute settlement between the warring Wags, Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing Rebekah Vardy in her £1.5m lawsuit against Coleen Rooney, said: ‘There can be no doubt that it will go to trial.’

He said that his own side’s costs alone for a nine-day trial would be £475,000.

Mr Tomlinson, who has launched an application to have large sections of Coleen’s defence ‘struck out’ from the case, said it could almost slash the trial costs in half.

He said ‘assuming a five-day trial with the material taken out, we estimate our costs at £273,000. I’m not suggesting these figures are set in stone, they are provided in good faith.’

Mr Tomlinson said sections of the defence around Mrs Vardy’s relationship with The Sun newspaper, including her alleged but denied authorship of ‘The Secret Wag’ column, are not relevant to the trial.

‘Much of it is so far away from the issues as to be patently irrelevant,’ he told the court.

Referring to one part of Mrs Rooney’s defence, he added: ‘There was almost nothing about leaking private information about anyone to the press, let alone the defendant’s family and friends.’

Mr Tomlinson highlighted that both women have a public profile and their own relationships with the media.

Mr Tomlinson, referring to sections of Coleen’s defence which allege that Rebekah was a ‘close friend’ of Sun journalist Simon Boyle, said: ‘What has happened in this case is that the defendant has gone through the claimant’s appearances in the newspapers, put two and two together and made seven.’

‘It’s effectively saying that ‘she’s had an interview with Simon Boyle, so he’s a close friend of yours’.

<!—->

Advertisement

Coleen’s team told the court that the sections which Rebekah was seeking to remove are ‘plainly relevant and proportionate’ and the argument that leaving them in will substantially increase the costs of the trial is ‘seriously overstated and bears no real scrutiny’. 

They added: ‘Another factor that should be borne in mind is that the Claimant [Rebekah] is seeking to remove what are, no doubt, paragraphs that [she] finds uncomfortable and embarrassing. ‘ 

The key issue in Rebekah’s pre-trial application to the court concerned the so-called ‘TV decisions post’ which Coleen put out on Instagram and claims she blocked all her other followers apart from Rebekah from viewing.

In the post, Coleen posted a selfie with text reading ‘easing my way back into work!! TV decisions today’ in September 2019. 

A story reporting her desire to revive her TV career appeared on The Sun’s website three days later, Mrs Rooney claims. 

However, Mrs Rooney said she ‘invented’ the story as part of her investigation to discover the source of the leaks and had no intention of entering into more television work. 

But the judge rejected the application for summary judgement, saying: ‘It is one of many factual issues to be resolved at trial in determining whether the truth defence is made out.

It seems highly unlikely that resolution of this issue would assist the parties to settle the claim.’ 

She added: ‘While there is some force in the claimant’s submission that there are significant differences between the TV Decisions Articles and the Post from which they are alleged to derive, the question whether the claimant disclosed the TV Decisions Post to The Sun is one that can only properly be answered having regard to all the evidence at trial. ‘ 

Coleen’s solicitors, Brabners, put out an immediate statement headed: ‘Rebekah Vardy’s summary judgment application fails’

They added: ‘Rebekah Vardy’s application for summary judgment was dismissed by Mrs Justice Steyn DBE in a judgment handed down this morning in the ongoing Vardy v Rooney libel litigation. 

‘The court rejected those applications by Mrs Vardy, with the exception of two paragraphs and parts of another one relating to allegations of Ms Vardy’s self-promotion in the press.

‘A key part of the defence that Mrs Vardy failed to strike out is Mrs Rooney’s allegation that Ms Vardy was a primary source for the ‘Secret Wag’ column in The Sun.’ 

Hitting back: Coleen's legal team compared the win to a '2-1 victory in the semi-final' and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn (pictured in 2018)

Hitting back: Coleen's legal team compared the win to a '2-1 victory in the semi-final' and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn (pictured in 2018)

Hitting back: Coleen’s legal team compared the win to a ‘2-1 victory in the semi-final’ and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn (pictured in 2018)

‘The high-profile libel claim brought by Ms Vardy is over a post on social media that alleged she had secretly informed The Sun newspaper of Ms Rooney’s private posts and stories from Instagram.’ 

She said: ‘The claimant’s engagement on social media with these journalists is relevant in considering the defendant’s case that she had an exceptionally close relationship with them, which I have accepted is one of the building blocks on which the defendant seeks to build her defence of truth.’ 

Mrs Justice Steyn threw out parts of Mrs Rooney’s defence but kept some aspects that Mrs Vardy had applied to strike out. 

‘Wagatha Christie’ trial could cost £1million

The Wagatha Christie libel trial could last nearly two weeks and cost almost £1m, the High Court heard.

Dashing any hopes of a last-minute settlement between the warring Wags, Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing Rebekah Vardy in her £1.5m lawsuit against Coleen Rooney, said: ‘There can be no doubt that it will go to trial.’

He said that his own side’s costs alone for a nine-day trial would be £475,000.

Mr Tomlinson, who has launched an application to have large sections of Coleen’s defence ‘struck out’ from the case, said it could almost slash the trial costs in half.

He said ‘assuming a five-day trial with the material taken out, we estimate our costs at £273,000. I’m not suggesting these figures are set in stone, they are provided in good faith.’

Mr Tomlinson said sections of the defence around Mrs Vardy’s relationship with The Sun newspaper, including her alleged but denied authorship of ‘The Secret Wag’ column, are not relevant to the trial.

‘Much of it is so far away from the issues as to be patently irrelevant,’ he told the court.

Referring to one part of Mrs Rooney’s defence, he added: ‘There was almost nothing about leaking private information about anyone to the press, let alone the defendant’s family and friends.’

Mr Tomlinson highlighted that both women have a public profile and their own relationships with the media.

Mr Tomlinson, referring to sections of Coleen’s defence which allege that Rebekah was a ‘close friend’ of Sun journalist Simon Boyle, said: ‘What has happened in this case is that the defendant has gone through the claimant’s appearances in the newspapers, put two and two together and made seven.’

‘It’s effectively saying that ‘she’s had an interview with Simon Boyle, so he’s a close friend of yours’.

<!—->

Advertisement

The judge dismissed a claim by Mrs Rooney that her fellow footballer’s wife showed ‘publicity-seeking behaviour’ when sitting behind Mrs Rooney in someone else’s seat at the 2016 Euros. 

Mrs Justice Steyn found that even assuming the allegation was true, it would still not help Mrs Rooney’s case. 

She said: ‘The fact that a person seeks media coverage of their own attendance at a football match does not make it more probable that they would disclose private information about another person to the press.’ 

Another section concerned Rebekah’s so-called ‘campaign of self-promotion’ and outlined alleged dealings between her and paparazzi agencies. 

It was claimed that in June 2018, during the World Cup, Rebekah ‘orchestrated’ a photograph of her with other WAGS Millie Savage, Gemma Acton, Megan Davison, Annabel Peyton, Fern Hawkins, Shannon Horlock, Annie Kilner, and Lucia Loi outside a restaurant in St Petersburg which appeared in The Sun. 

Another section claimed that Rebekah was accused by former Girls Aloud star Sarah Harding of taking ‘intrusive photographs’ or her at the National Television Awards ceremony in 2018. 

The judge said the argument was irrelevant, adding ‘it would be a waste of time and resources’ for the claim to continue. 

Mrs Justice Steyn also threw out an allegation that Mrs Vardy was leaking about the libel case itself to The Sun. 

She said: ‘While this is an allegation of leaking confidential information to The Sun, the nature of it is very different to what was alleged in the post. 

‘Notably, the defendant has pleaded it in support of the contention that there is a close relationship between the claimant and The Sun, rather than as an instance of the claimant disclosing another person’s private information.’ 

The judge further dismissed part of Mrs Rooney’s defence about how Mrs Vardy had written a statement for the press regulator IPSO after a complaint was made about The Sun. 

She later dismissed Mrs Vardy’s bid for summary judgment – a legal step which would see that part of the case resolved in the claimant’s favour – in relation to Mrs Rooney’s claim that Mrs Vardy leaked a story to The Sun about her returning to TV presenting. 

‘The court also refused Mrs Vardy’s application to strike out Mrs Rooney’s public interest defence.

‘In the same application, Mrs Vardy had also sought to limit what documents and information she will be required to disclose by applying to strike out twelve paragraphs of Mrs Rooney’s defence.

Link hienalouca.com

Advertising. Insurance companies have spent millions of dollars in research to determine what types of drivers and cars pose the most financial. Based On These results, They Have Come Up With A Formula That determined how Much IS A PARTICULAR driver charged in premiums. Based on these results, they developed a formula that determines how much a particular driver is charged in premiums. While this formula Is Only fully-Known to Cheapest Cars Insurance companies, it’s quite Obvious That Some coaches and people are less expensive to insure Than Others. Although this formula can not be fully known to insurance companies, it is clear that some cars and people are cheaper to insure than others. In this article, We Will Discuss The Particular attributes of car Which make it more expensive Then Another, to insure. In this article we will examine the characteristics of the car that make it more expensive than the other, to insure. Amounts are based premium Typically how expensive it IS The Car, The Size of the Car, whether or not It Is Targeted by Thieves and whether or not it can-do extensive damage to another car. the premiums are usually based on how the car is expensive, the size of the car, whether or not he is the target of thieves and whether or not it can do considerable damage to another car. Cars That Have less value (cost) Will Be Cheaper to Insure That Are More Than expensive cars. Cars that have less value (cost), will be less expensive to insure that cars are more expensive. This Is Because It Will Cost The Insurance companies less money to replace to replace golden shares The Entire because if It Is TotalEdit gold stolen. That’s because it will cost insurance companies less money to replace parts or to replace the whole car if it is reached or stolen. The Size of the year because est aussi important part of The Insurance cost equation. The size of the car is also an important part of the equation insurance costs. If a Car Is Too Small or Too Big, Then The insurance Will Be Higher. If a car is too small or too large, the insurance will be higher. This Is Because bigger cars can-do more damage to cars in crashes Other. This is because bigger cars can do more damage to other cars in accidents. The crash if it Is the driver’s fault With The bigger because, Then The insurance Likely Will Have to shell out Quite a bit of cash. If the accident is the fault of the driver with the highest car insurance will probably pay a little money. Cars That Are Too Small Have the opposite problem. Cars that are too small have the opposite problem. Often They Are Damaged And The occupants more more Likely To Suffer Injuries from crash related. They are most often damaged and the occupants more likely to suffer from injuries caused by accident. The least expensive cars to insure are Those That Are mid-sized. The cheapest cars to be insured are those of medium size. Therefor, if long-term Costs are year end for you, Be sure to purchase a mid-sized car. Therefore, if the long-term costs are a problem for you, be sure to buy a mid size car. Whether or not a car IS Typically Targeted by Thieves Is Another component to Calculating your insurance rates. Whether or not a car is typically targeted by thieves is another element for calculating your insurance premium. If your SI as Likely to Be Stolen, Then insurance companies assume more risk in Insuring you and subsequently, force you to pay more in premiums. If your car is likely to be stolen then insurance companies assume more risk by ensuring thereafter, forcing you to pay higher premiums. Keep This Is Mind, When you are looking for your next car. Keep this in mind when you’re looking for your next car. Insurance Companies Have A pretty Elaborate formula When It Comes to Deciding Who Will pay what, for Their policies. Insurance companies have a fairly complex formula when it comes to deciding who will pay anything for their policies. Owners of cars That Have to Pay The Least Amount of money for insurance are Those That Have Typically mid sized cars and vehicles Have That Are Not Targeted by thieves. Car owners have to pay less money for insurance are generally those with mid-size cars and vehicles that are not targeted by thieves. Individual year if IS are interested in. cutting back How Much THEY pay for insurance, They Will Need to Consider These Things When It Is Time to make a purchase. If someone is interested in cutting back on how much they pay for insurance, they will need to consider these things when it’s time to make a purchase. Insurance companies are all about Assessing Risk. Insurance companies are all about risk assessment. If They view you as a Financial Risk, They Will Make Sure That You pay more. If they see you as a financial risk, they should ensure that you pay more. This May SEEM unfair, however, insurance companies Have Done Numerous studies and Have Come Up With A profile is What types of drivers and cars Get Into The Most accidents and Will Likely cost em more money. This may seem unfair, however, insurance companies have done many studies and have developed a profile on what types of drivers and cars entering the most accidents and will likely cost more money. Will individualist thesis end up Paying more Then Someone That Does not exhibit thesis characteristics. These people end up paying more than someone who does not exhibit these characteristics. Therefor, try to stay away form high powered cars, vans That Are Extremely Large And That Can Do Major Damage To other cars on the road, cars are too small and That That Are Likely To Be Damaged Greatly if in a crash. Therefore, try to stay away from high-shaped electric cars, cars that are extremely important and can cause major damage to other cars on the road, cars that are too small and are likely to be so heavily damaged in an accident. Also, remember, the Less expensive because The IS, the Less You Will Probably Have to pay for insurance, Unless of course, because The IS small. Also, remember, the cheaper the car, the less you’ll probably have to pay for insurance, unless of course, the car is small.
(Total views: 64 Time, 1 visits per day)

Leave a Reply