Rebekah Vardy

It was Rebekah Vardy who took Coleen Rooney to court, saying she had suffered "very serious harm to her reputation" as a result of allegations that she had ...

Rooney defended the claim on the basis it was true and in the public interest for her to publish it. Wayne Rooney was among the witnesses who gave evidence and supported his wife in the courtroom every day. The judge said: "It was evident that Ms Vardy found the process of giving evidence stressful and, at times, distressing. for such vitriol." She went on: "It's sad it's come this far… However, any damages are usually swallowed up by legal costs. In her judgment, Judge Justice Steyn described Vardy's evidence as "manifestly inconsistent... evasive or implausible". She did not give evidence during the hearing. In her judgment, the judge referred to some of the " vile abuse" Vardy had received online - which had included a message which someone said her baby should be incinerated - she said there was no "justification or excuse... While the judge found that Vardy had disclosed private information, she said she believed Vardy had felt "genuinely offended" by Rooney's accusation, employing "a degree of self-deception" to minimise her role in the leak. Despite the court finding that Rooney's reveal post "was on a matter of public interest", the judge ruled that it couldn't be used as part of her defence because she not take "steps to put the allegation to Ms Vardy and give her an opportunity to respond".

Footballer's wife Rebekah Vardy has lost her libel trial against Coleen Rooney. The legal feud has been dubbed the "WAGatha Christie" case, a reference to ...

The intrigue began almost three years ago when Rooney became suspicious about stories appearing in the Sun tabloid involving information she had put on her personal Instagram account. "However, I do not accept that the belief was reasonable in all the circumstances. They continued for almost two years, intruding on my privacy and that of my family. He argued that a new witness statement submitted by Ms Vardy suggested Ms Watt was the source but Ms Vardy claims she “did not authorise or condone her”. All my attempts to do so were knocked back by Mrs (Rebekah) Vardy. The court is told Ms Vardy was not referring to Ms Rooney when she called someone a “nasty bitch” in one exchange with Ms Watt. Ms Vardy later “appears to accept” that her agent was the source of allegedly leaked stories, Ms Rooney’s barrister David Sherborne told the High Court. In February of that year, in a tearful appearance on ITV’s Loose Women, Ms Vardy said the stress of the dispute caused her to have severe anxiety attacks and she “ended up in hospital three times”. "Aside from one occasion when Mr Jones was given access for a day, only Ms Vardy and Ms Watt accessed her account and Ms Vardy knew that was the case." In particular, it was not reasonable to believe that it was in the public interest to publish the Reveal Post without taking any steps to put the allegation to Ms Vardy and give her an opportunity to respond. She added; “The evidence analysed clearly shows, in my view, that Ms Vardy knew of and condoned this behaviour, actively engaging in it by directing Ms Watt to the private Instagram account [of Coleen Rooney], sending her screenshots of Ms Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press via Ms Watt." She continues: "I also accept that Ms Rooney believed, having given several warnings on her private Instagram account, as well as a public warning, that it was in the public interest to publish the Reveal Post.

Rather than clearing name, ruling leaves Vardy with legal defeat and destroyed reputation.

He said it would be an “extraordinarily complicated conspiracy” to have deleted all the evidence. The legal team for Rooney, 36, admitted to the court that they did not have any smoking gun proving definitively that Vardy was responsible for the leaks. She also said that Vardy and her agent Caroline Watt were likely to have deliberately destroyed potentially damning evidence. There was widespread mockery in court of the loss of potentially crucial evidence by Vardy and those around her. She said it was not believable that Watt accidentally dropped her mobile phone in the North Sea shortly after a legal request was made to search its She said: “It was not a case I ever sought or wanted.

Rooney alleged that stories from her private Instagram account were leaked by Vardy to journalists at British tabloid newspaper The Sun.

Rooney maintained that her actions were justified in the interests of truth and public interest. Vardy vehemently denied the claims, arguing that the accusations had caused her "public abuse on a massive scale," and suing Rooney in an attempt to clear her name. It comes two years after Vardy sued Rooney for defamation after a dispute over a string of Instagram posts. The U.K. High Court ruled against Vardy and in favor Rooney after a years' long dispute between the two "wags" — soccer players' wives and girlfriends — which featured all the twists and turns of one of Agatha Christie's finest mystery novels. - It comes two years after Vardy sued Rooney for defamation following a dispute over a string of Instagram posts. - The U.K. High Court ruled against Vardy and in favor Rooney after a years' long saga with enough twists and turns to rival one of Agatha Christie's finest mystery novels.

Rebekah Vardy has lost the 'Wagatha Christie' libel battle against Coleen Rooney over a viral social media post, after a High Court judge in London found it ...

and it is what she believes even more so now that we have got to the end of the case." I brought this action to vindicate my reputation and am devastated by the judge's finding." Welcoming the ruling, Rooney said: "It was not a case I ever sought or wanted. The judge found that the loss of evidence was "not accidental" and also that the reason Ms Watt did not come to court to give evidence "was that she knew that to a large extent the evidence in her statements was untrue". Please review their details and accept them to load the content. Vardy, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, denied leaking the stories and sued her fellow footballer's wife for libel. In her judgment, Mrs Justice Steyn described Ms Vardy's evidence on a number of occasions as "not credible". In particular, she said, the loss of crucial evidence was "not accidental". She said that Ms Vardy would not concede facts "no matter how implausible her evidence". The judge said Ms Vardy was indignant about being accused of leaking the stories, not because she did not do it but due to a number of factors including "self-deception" and her belief that the stories were harmless. "Her evidence was consistent with the contemporaneous evidence and with the evidence given by her witnesses." She said "it was not reasonable to believe that it was in the public interest to publish the reveal post without taking any steps to put the allegation to Mrs Vardy and give her an opportunity to respond". She said in her ruling: "She sought to answer the questions she was asked without any evasion, and without conveying any sense that she was giving pre-prepared answers. In her ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn said it was "likely" that Vardy's agent at the time, Caroline Watt, "undertook the direct act" of passing the information to The Sun.

Both Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy have spoken out following the verdict in the "Wagatha Christie" trial, which saw Rooney win the case.

They continued for almost two years, intruding on my privacy and that of my family. Mrs Rooney (36) said “naturally” she is “pleased” that the judge has ruled in her favour today. All my attempts to do so were knocked back by Mrs (Rebekah) Vardy.

Judge Justice Steyn said she accepted that Coleen Rooneys reveal post was a matter of public interest due to the undesirable practice of information about ...

Wayne Rooney was among the witnesses who gave evidence and supported his wife in the courtroom every day. The judge said: "It was evident that Mrs Vardy found the process of giving evidence stressful and, at times, distressing. for such vitriol." She went on: "It's sad it's come this far… However, in the written argument for Rooney, 36, barrister David Sherborne said his client felt "absolutely confident" in the investigation she conducted to find the source of the leaks and that her "authentication was as thorough as many newsrooms". She did not give evidence during the hearing. The 40-year-old suffered "immense distress" as a result of Rooney's allegations and "had no choice" but to take her to court "to establish her innocence and vindicate her reputation", Mr Tomlinson said. evasive or implausible". In her judgment, the judge referred to some of the " vile abuse" Vardy had received online - which had included a message which someone said her baby should be incinerated - she said there was no "justification or excuse... I bear in mind when assessing her evidence the degree of stress she was naturally feeling, given the high-profile nature of the trial, the abuse that she has suffered since the reveal post was published, and the length of time she was in the witness box." In her judgment, Judge Justice Steyn said Rooney had succeeded in establishing that the essence of her social media post was "substantially true" - that's to say Vardy was responsible for leaking her private information to the press. In her conclusion, she said: "I have found that Ms Vardy was party to the disclosure to The Sun... Ms Vardy knew of and condoned this behaviour, actively engaging in it by directing Ms Watt to the Private Instagram Account, sending her screenshots of Ms Rooney's posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press via Ms Watt."

Rebekah Vardy has said she is "devastated" by the ruling in the "Wagatha Christie" High Court libel claim she brought against Coleen Rooney.

In the post on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook, she wrote: "I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. She said: "It was not a case I ever sought or wanted. The libel battle came after Mrs Rooney publicly claimed that an account behind three fake stories in The Sun that she had posted on her personal Instagram account was Mrs Vardy's. Mrs Justice Steyn said in her ruling: "In my judgment, the conclusions that I have reached as to the extent to which the claimant engaged in disclosing to The Sun information to which she only had access as a permitted follower of an Instagram account which she knew, and Mrs Rooney repeatedly asserted, was private, suffice to show the single meaning is substantially true." In her 76-page judgment, Mrs Justice Steyn said Mrs Vardy's evidence was "manifestly inconsistent" with contemporaneous documentary evidence on "many occasions". "The judge accepted that publication of Coleen's post was not in the 'public interest' and she also rejected her claim that I was the 'Secret Wag'. But as for the rest of her judgment, she got it wrong and this is something I cannot accept."

A High Court judge rules that "significant parts" of Rebekah Vardy's evidence are "not credible".

Mrs Justice Steyn said she accepted "the reveal post was on a matter of public interest... But she added: "The evidence... But she added: "It was not reasonable to believe that it was in the public interest to publish the reveal post, without taking any steps to put the allegation to Mrs Vardy and give her an opportunity to respond." "It is not the result that I had expected, nor believe was just. Firstly, Mrs Vardy's legal bill will be enormous. Mrs Justice Steyn concluded that Mrs Vardy had"a degree of self-deception" about her role in disclosing information to The Sun. "Although significant parts of Mrs Vardy's evidence were not credible, my assessment is that she is genuinely offended by the accusation made against her by Mrs Rooney in the reveal post." "In my judgement, it is likely that Ms Vardy deliberately deleted her WhatsApp chat with Ms Watt, and that Ms Watt deliberately dropped her phone in the sea," she said. But the judge said the likelihood that the loss of the phone was accidental was "slim". The judge said of Mrs Vardy that "significant parts of her evidence were not credible", while she added: "In my judgement, Ms Rooney was an honest and reliable witness." Mrs Justice Steyn said it was "likely" that Mrs Vardy's agent at the time, Caroline Watt, "undertook the direct act" of passing information to The Sun. Mrs Rooney said she was "pleased" the ruling had gone in her favour, adding "it was not a case I ever sought or wanted".

Popular culture and celeb brand expert Nick Ede says during the trial, Rebekah Vardy has come across as a very vindictive woman - and after losing, ...

Promoted Stories It has “biopic” written all over it. Promoted Stories

Mrs Justice Steyn wrote the "reveal post" was on a matter of public interest; Judge wrote it is clear Vardy 'knew of and condoned' leaks to the press ...

The intrigue began almost three years ago when Rooney became suspicious about stories appearing in the Sun tabloid involving information she had put on her personal Instagram account. "However, I do not accept that the belief was reasonable in all the circumstances. They continued for almost two years, intruding on my privacy and that of my family. He argued that a new witness statement submitted by Ms Vardy suggested Ms Watt was the source but Ms Vardy claims she “did not authorise or condone her”. All my attempts to do so were knocked back by Mrs (Rebekah) Vardy. The court is told Ms Vardy was not referring to Ms Rooney when she called someone a “nasty bitch” in one exchange with Ms Watt. Ms Vardy later “appears to accept” that her agent was the source of allegedly leaked stories, Ms Rooney’s barrister David Sherborne told the High Court. In February of that year, in a tearful appearance on ITV’s Loose Women, Ms Vardy said the stress of the dispute caused her to have severe anxiety attacks and she “ended up in hospital three times”. "Aside from one occasion when Mr Jones was given access for a day, only Ms Vardy and Ms Watt accessed her account and Ms Vardy knew that was the case." In particular, it was not reasonable to believe that it was in the public interest to publish the Reveal Post without taking any steps to put the allegation to Ms Vardy and give her an opportunity to respond. She added; “The evidence analysed clearly shows, in my view, that Ms Vardy knew of and condoned this behaviour, actively engaging in it by directing Ms Watt to the private Instagram account [of Coleen Rooney], sending her screenshots of Ms Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press via Ms Watt." She continues: "I also accept that Ms Rooney believed, having given several warnings on her private Instagram account, as well as a public warning, that it was in the public interest to publish the Reveal Post.

Rebekah Vardy probably isn't buzzing at the ruling, a character assassination that has left her well and truly stung by libel.

She didn’t even blink at references to her husband’s repeated infidelities, didn’t stumble under questioning, but conducted herself like someone who truly has the courage of her convictions, and her convictions are that you don’t cross Coleen or her family. Rooney took a big risk in publicly accusing Vardy – or, to be precise “It’s………Rebekah Vardy’s account” – of leaking stories about her to the tabloids, because in English law the burden of proof falls on the person who made the defamatory claim. Vardy, by contrast, was more like a character on Dynasty, hysterically crying and collapsing in the witness box as Rooney’s barrister, David Sherborne, repeatedly read out her own words, from Vardy traded private details of her husband’s colleagues and their wives in the hope of currying positive coverage in the media. And like Streisand – who sued a website for featuring an image of her house, thereby drawing the world’s attention to it – she believed going to court was the best way to control her image. Like Wilde – who sued the Marquess of Queensberry for revealing his homosexuality – Vardy went to court to deny something that a rock could see was true: she’d passed on private stories about Rooney to the press.