Rebekah Vardy has lost an appeal after claiming Coleen Rooney’s lawyers “deliberately” understated some of their client’s costs during the “Wagatha Christie” libel case.
The high-profile court case took place after Mrs Rooney, wife of former Man Utd striker Wayne Rooney, accused Mrs Vardy on social media in 2019 of leaking her private information to the press.
Mrs Vardy, wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, unsuccessfully tried to sue Mrs Rooney in a libel battle in 2022 that captivated some areas of the public and was later dramatised for TV.
The judge ordered Mrs Vardy to pay 90% of Mrs Rooney’s costs, including an initial payment of £800,000.
Both women are now in a further dispute over how much Mrs Vardy should pay in legal costs as a result.
In October last year, a specialist costs judge ruled Mrs Rooney’s lawyers did not commit misconduct after they were accused by Mrs Vardy’s legal team of understating some of her costs.
Mrs Vardy appealed against the decision last month while Mrs Rooney’s lawyers claimed the challenge was “misconceived”.
Politics latest: Starmer: Trade deal with US ‘will not alleviate’ UK’s economic challenges
UK weather: Temperatures to soar up to 23C in some areas on Friday
Starmer says government will fund further local grooming inquiries if ‘needed’
In a ruling on Thursday, High Court judge Mr Justice Cavanagh dismissed the appeal.
He said: “The appeal must fail on the basis that the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that he came to.”
A hearing last October was told that Mrs Rooney’s claimed legal bill – £1,833,906.89 – was more than three times her “agreed costs budget of £540,779.07”.
Jamie Carpenter KC, for Mrs Vardy, said that this was “disproportionate”, and that the earlier “understatement” of some costs was “improper and unreasonable” and used to “attack the other party’s costs”.
However, Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker said that while there was a “failure to be transparent” by Mrs Rooney’s legal team, he found “on balance and, I have to say, only just” that they had not committed wrongdoing.
Follow our channel and never miss an update.
In written submissions for the appeal against the decision last month, Mr Carpenter said Mrs Rooney “very substantially understated” her costs by around 40% in her budget, known as a “precedent H”, in 2021, and that the amount Mrs Vardy should pay should therefore be reduced.
Benjamin Williams KC, for Mrs Rooney, said in his written submissions that her budget was “properly and correctly completed” and there was “no tenable case” of misconduct.
In a separate ruling on Thursday, Mrs Vardy largely lost a bid for access to more documents in relation to costs.
Her lawyers asked the court in February to order Mrs Rooney’s team to hand over “privileged” documents, details about her claim for VAT, and further information about retainers between Mrs Rooney and her solicitors.
Mrs Rooney’s lawyers resisted the bid, describing it as a “fishing expedition”.
Read more from Sky News:
Inside missile defence base protecting Europe
Striking bin workers urged to accept deal
Over 1,000 Cabinet Office jobs to be axed
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
On Thursday, Senior Costs Judge Mark Whalan said he was “not persuaded” Mrs Vardy’s lawyers should be allowed to inspect VAT documents, or other privileged material.
But he ruled they should be allowed to see a redacted retainer between Mrs Rooney and her solicitors.
Judge Whalan also ordered Mrs Vardy to pay almost £11,000 of costs of the application, stating that he must “conclude realistically” that it “is the defendant and not the claimant” who had been successful.
After the rulings, a spokesperson for Mrs Vardy said: “In terms of the two judgments today, we are gratified disclosure has been obliged in one ruling whilst being respectfully disappointed that, in the other judgment, our appeal was not successful.
“Now we just wish to move on and look to the future. We will be making no further comment at this time.”
