Coleen Rooney inflicts ANOTHER court defeat on Rebekah Vardy

Coleen Rooney today inflicted another court defeat on Rebekah Vardy as a judge ruled the £1.8million legal bill she landed on her arch enemy had been legitimately incurred.

Barristers for Mrs Rooney and Mrs Vardy have returned to the High Court in a dispute over how much Mrs Vardy should pay in legal costs after she lost their Wagatha Christie libel battle in 2022.

Mrs Vardy's lawyers argued that the opposing legal team's estimate of their costs for expenses including a luxury hotel and a hotly disputed minibar tab was deliberately misleading and that this warranted a reduction in the amount she had to pay. 

But Robin Dunne, for Mrs Rooney, said that 'there has been no misconduct' and that it was 'illogical to say that we misled anyone'.

In a ruling today, Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker found 'on balance and, I have to say, only just', that Mrs Rooney's legal team had not committed wrongdoing, and therefore it was 'not appropriate' to reduce her legal bill. 

Mr Gordon-Saker said that while there was a 'failure to be transparent', it was not 'sufficiently unreasonable or improper' to constitute misconduct.

In 2019, Mrs Rooney, the wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Mrs Vardy of leaking her private information to the press on social media, which Mrs Justice Steyn found in July 2022 was 'substantially true'.

The judge later ordered Mrs Vardy, the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, to pay 90% of Mrs Rooney's costs, including an initial payment of £800,000.

But the latest hearing in London 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', which Mrs Vardy's barrister Jamie Carpenter KC said was 'disproportionate'.

Read More

Coleen Rooney's lawyer 'booked a modest hotel then switched to Nobu because WIFI didn't work'

He continued that the earlier 'understatement' of some costs was 'improper and unreasonable' and 'involved knowingly misleading Mrs Vardy and the court'.

Mr Dunne said that the argument that the amount owed should be reduced was 'misconceived' and that the budget was 'not designed to be an accurate or binding representation' of her overall legal costs.

He said: 'Mrs Vardy's argument appears to arise from her frustration that her deplorable conduct in this litigation has led to the budgets becoming irrelevant.'

He continued: 'Had Mrs Vardy conducted this matter in a reasonable fashion, Mrs Rooney would be confined to her budget and would have recovered no more absent good reason.

Barristers for Mrs Vardy told the High Court in written submissions that some of Mrs Rooney's legal costs were 'extraordinary', including money for a lawyer staying 'at the Nobu Hotel, incurring substantial dinner and drinks charges as well as minibar charges'.

But Mr Dunne, said that one of Mrs Rooney's solicitors only stayed at the hotel due to a problem with their original booking elsewhere.

He told the court: '(The solicitor) did not book the Nobu Hotel. He booked a modest hotel but on the first night of staying there did not have any working WiFi or shower.

'He was offered to stay at the Nobu by the defendant's agent, who has a preferential rate.'

Read More

Coleen Rooney puts on a defiant display while shopping for cars amid court battle

Mr Dunne said that the food and minibar tab ran up to £225, but said the minibar tab 'ran to £7, and ran to two bottles of water'.

The barrister continued that the solicitor paid £295 per night to stay at the hotel when going rates are more than £600 a night.

Mr Dunne said Mrs Vardy's lawyers were trying to give the impression that his client 'has been profligate in her spending on this litigation' but said it gave a 'misleading and factually inaccurate' account.

He said: 'Yesterday morning, The Sun ran a front-page headline which dealt with minibar charges.

'It also was reported around the world, over and over again on Twitter, or X, and the impression given by the claimant, Mrs Vardy, when she spoke to The Sun or her sources, was clearly that this was evidence of the defendant spending wildly and that is what she says was wholly unreasonable.

'There are some factual inaccuracies. It is both misleading and factually inaccurate and it is potentially defamatory, and steps are being taken in that respect.'

Jamie Carpenter KC, for Mrs Vardy, said in response to Mr Dunne's account of the spending breakdown: 'We do say that the defendant's costs are extravagant, but the line-by-line issues are for another occasion.'

But Mr Dunne said in his written submissions that Mrs Vardy had shown 'deplorable conduct' throughout the case, and added: 'It sits ill in Mrs Vardy's mouth to now claim that Mrs Rooney's costs, a great deal of which were caused directly by her conduct, are unreasonable.'

The hearing is dealing with points of principle before a line-by-line assessment of costs, which will take place at a later date. 

The hearing before Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker, which neither Mrs Rooney nor Mrs Vardy attended on Tuesday, is expected to conclude on Wednesday.