In a recent court session, we had the chance to explore the ongoing legal feud between Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy, a case that has truly captured the attention of the media and the public. A judge confirmed that Mrs. Rooney’s legal team did not commit any wrongdoing, despite Mrs. Vardy’s claims of financial irregularities related to the expenses incurred during the high-profile libel trial.
The outcome saw Mrs. Vardy losing the case, as the judge ruled it was “substantially true” that she had leaked Mrs. Rooney’s private information to the press. Consequently, Mrs. Vardy was ordered to pay 90% of Mrs. Rooney’s legal fees. Initially estimated at £540,000, the total legal costs have now ballooned to £1.8 million, igniting a renewed dispute over the actual sum owed.
Senior costs judge Andrew Gordon-Saker found that, by a narrow margin, Mrs. Rooney’s team had not engaged in any misconduct. He stated that the circumstances didn’t warrant a reduction in the amount owed by Mrs. Vardy. While he acknowledged some lack of transparency, it wasn’t enough to classify as misconduct.
In court, Mrs. Vardy’s barrister, Jamie Carpenter KC, argued that Mrs. Rooney had “deliberately misled” both Mrs. Vardy and the court regarding her previous cost assessments, labeling this as serious misconduct. He insisted that this should lead to a reduction of Mrs. Vardy’s financial obligations, but the judge ultimately disagreed.
The media had a field day, reporting that Mrs. Rooney’s legal expenses had surged to £1,833,907, far exceeding her initial budget of £540,779, a “remarkable increase,” as described by Mr. Carpenter. However, Mrs. Rooney’s representative, Robin Dunne, argued that suggesting the amount owed should be lowered was misguided. He stressed that the budget was not meant to strictly reflect her overall legal costs and pointed to Mrs. Vardy’s actions, implying that had she acted reasonably, Mrs. Rooney would have stayed within budget.
As proceedings continued, discussions included specific costs, such as hotel expenses incurred by a lawyer from Mrs. Rooney’s team. Mr. Dunne clarified that claims of exorbitant spending at the Nobu Hotel were “factually incorrect.” He explained that the firm’s lawyer had originally booked a more modest hotel but faced issues with amenities, leading to a switch to Nobu, where a discounted rate was found; moreover, any minibar charges were minimal.
Judge Gordon-Saker also dismissed Mrs. Vardy’s contention that it was unreasonable for Mrs. Rooney to choose a law firm based in London. He explained that it was a reasonable decision given the case’s significance and the specialized nature of defamation law. Additionally, he rejected arguments regarding unreasonable fees for consultations with her barrister, citing the complexities introduced by Mrs. Vardy’s actions, including evidence destruction.
As this high-profile case continues to unfold, both parties have chosen to skip the latest court proceedings, leaving many eager for further developments.
