Rebekah Vardy has been ordered to pay an additional £100,000 to Coleen Rooney, bringing the total amount owed to £900,000, following the conclusion of their high-profile Wagatha Christie libel battle. The latest judgment comes after Vardy’s initial payment of £800,000 and follows a series of court hearings over the past year. The dispute centers around Vardy’s alleged leaking of Rooney’s private information to the press, which Rooney publicly accused her of in a viral social media post in 2019.
The latest hearing, which took place on Monday, saw barristers for both parties appear in court to dispute legal costs. Senior costs judge Andrew Gordon-Saker ordered Vardy to make the additional payment within 21 days, citing concerns that Rooney would otherwise be kept out of her costs. The judge emphasized that the full amount owed by Vardy is still to be determined and will be decided through a “line-by-line” assessment of costs at a later date.
The “line-by-line” assessment is expected to take place in early 2025 and will aim to determine the overall amount of money owing, which could potentially be higher than the initial payment. The hearing also saw both parties’ representatives present written submissions on the issue of costs, with Vardy’s barrister arguing that Rooney’s legal bill was drawn without sufficient care and included unnecessary expenses.
Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy (Image via Getty)
In contrast, Rooney’s barrister accused Vardy of showing “deplorable conduct” throughout the case and suggested that costs could have been lower if Vardy had conducted the litigation appropriately. The dispute is a result of Rooney’s claim that Vardy, with the help of her agent Caroline Watt, leaked her private information to the press on social media in 2019. The allegations were later found to be “substantially true” by Judge Steyn, who ruled in Rooney’s favor in July 2022.
The Wagatha Christie libel battle has been a highly publicized and dramatic saga, with both parties receiving significant media attention over the past few years. The latest judgment brings an added layer of complexity to the already contentious dispute, and it is likely to take some time for the parties to resolve the issue fully.
