Following a very high-profile seven day trial-cum-media-circus in May, the judgment in the dramatic High Court libel case between Rebekah Vardy and Coleen Rooney was handed down today. Having already ‘won’ the media coverage of the case, Coleen Rooney emerged as the winner in Court as well.
War of the WAGs
Mrs Rooney (wife of former England captain Wayne Rooney) had a hugely public falling out with Mrs Vardy (who is married to Mr Rooney’s former international team-mate, Jamie Vardy), almost three years ago when Mrs Rooney publicly shared the results of her ‘sting’ operation investigating the source of leaked information from her private Instagram account to The Sun.
As part of her sleuthing (which famously caused the media to dub the case “Wagatha Christie”), Mrs Rooney posted a series of fake Instagram stories including travelling to Mexico for a “gender selection” procedure and the basement of her family home flooding, but she limited who could see each of the social media posts to one person in order to determine who had leaked the stories to the press.
The operation concluded by way of Mrs Rooney presenting her findings on social media: “It’s …………. Rebekah Vardy’s account”. Inevitably, this public pronouncement of Mrs Vardy’s guilt went viral.
Mrs Vardy denied that she leaked any private information about Mrs Rooney to the tabloid press and brought a defamation case against Mrs Rooney alleging serious harm to her reputation. Mrs Rooney defended the proceedings on the grounds of truth and also public interest.
Pitched Battle
During the trial, Mrs Vardy confirmed that she had intended to leak a story regarding the footballer Danny Drinkwater being arrested for drink-driving to The Sun. Additionally, Mrs Vardy appeared to accept that her agent, Ms Watt, leaked information from Mrs Rooney’s private Instagram to a newspaper but argued that it was not “new” information.
The Court heard that Mrs Rooney was “fuming” because of The Sun article which she said wrongly reported she had been in a crash, when in reality a lorry had scraped the side of her car. When Mrs Rooney posted about her suspicion that someone she trusted had been leaking stories, Ms Watt texted Mrs Vardy saying: “It wasn’t someone she trusted. It was me.” Mrs Vardy’s explanation for this was that she did not register the message as she had been bathing her children and watching Strictly at the time.
Mrs Rooney's barrister David Sherborne described Mrs Vardy's connection with her agent in relation to the leaks as "like hiring a hit man or woman". Mrs Vardy's legal representatives said that if Ms Watt was the source of leaked stories, "that's not something that Mrs Vardy knew anything about" and she did not "approve of or authorise" her to do so.
Final Score
Today Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the claim. Mrs Rooney succeeded in establishing that the essence of the libel was substantially true. The Court considered it “likely” that Ms Watt undertook the direct act of passing information to a journalist at The Sun, and also found that Mrs Vardy knew of, condoned and was actively engaged in this process.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the court also found that significant parts of Mrs Vardy’s evidence was not credible as there were occasions when her evidence was evasive or implausible, hence her evidence was treated with very considerable caution. Further, evidence crucial to the issue of Mrs Vardy’s relationship to Ms Watt was simply missing.
Mrs Vardy decided not to call Ms Watt, a key witness, because of concern for her friend’s welfare. However, the Court considered that the primary reason Ms Watt was reluctant to give evidence was because she knew that to a large extent the evidence she was due to give (and then later withdrew) was untrue, and that under cross-examination and scrutiny, her evidence would have undermined Mrs Vardy’s case.
Towards the beginning of the trial, Mr Sherborne said there had been a "widespread and significant destruction or loss of evidence" ahead of the case. The court heard that Ms Watt accidently dropped her phone in the sea because of a weakness in her hand, and after a boat was hit by a wave while she was on a family holiday to Scotland. The Court determined that the loss of both Mrs Vardy’s and Ms Watt’s WhatsApp conversations was deliberate, not accidental.
Mrs Rooney argued that it was in the public interest to expose Mrs Vardy for portraying a disingenuous image as the "First Lady of Football" when she had been "secretly leaking information" about her peers. However, Mrs Justice Steyn rejected this alternative public interest defence.
The Court noted that although the information disclosed could fairly be described as trivial, it did not need to be confidential or important to meet the threshold for libel. As the claim was dismissed, Mrs Vardy will not be entitled to any damages and will be required to contribute to Mrs Rooney’s costs. It is likely that the combined legal fees for both parties will have run into the millions.
There has also been a considerable personal cost to Mrs Vardy beyond that of picking up the legal tabs. The Court noted that: “Some members of the public have responded to the Reveal Post by subjecting Ms Vardy to vile abuse, including messages wishing her, her family, and even her (then unborn) baby, ill in the most awful terms. Nothing of which Ms Vardy has been accused, nor any of the findings in this judgment, provide any justification or excuse for subjecting her or her family, or any other person involved in this case, to such vitriol."
For further information or if you wish to discuss any matter relating to defamation or privacy, please contact our contentious media specialist partner, James Howarth.
The information on this site about legal matters is provided as a general guide only. Although we try to ensure that all of the information on this site is accurate and up to date, this cannot be guaranteed. The information on this site should not be relied upon or construed as constituting legal advice and Howes Percival LLP disclaims liability in relation to its use. You should seek appropriate legal advice before taking or refraining from taking any action.
To contact us, please fill out this form and we will get back in touch as soon as possible. Your personal data will be processed in accordance with our privacy policy which can be found here.
Thank you for your enquiry. We will respond as soon as possible.
