Rebekah Vardy lost her appeal after claiming that Coleen Rooney’s lawyers intentionally understated some of their client’s costs during the “Wagatha Christie” libel case.
The high-profile court case occurred after Mrs. Rooney, the wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Mrs. Vardy on social media in 2019 of leaking her private information to the media.
Mrs. Vardy, the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, attempted to sue Mrs. Rooney in a libel battle in 2022 that garnered significant public interest and was later adapted for television.
The judge ruled that Mrs. Vardy must pay 90% of Mrs. Rooney’s costs, including an initial payment of £800,000.
Both women are currently in a dispute over the amount Mrs. Vardy should pay in legal costs as a result.
In October of last year, a specialist costs judge determined that Mrs. Rooney’s lawyers did not engage in misconduct despite accusations by Mrs. Vardy’s legal team that some costs were understated.
Mrs. Vardy appealed against the decision last month, while Mrs. Rooney’s lawyers dismissed the challenge as “misconceived”.
In a ruling on Thursday, High Court judge Mr. Justice Cavanagh dismissed the appeal, stating, “The appeal must fail as the judge was justified in reaching his conclusion.”
A hearing last October revealed that Mrs. Rooney’s claimed legal bill of £1,833,906.89 was more than three times her “agreed costs budget of £540,779.07”.
Jamie Carpenter KC, representing Mrs. Vardy, argued 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 found that while there was a lack of transparency by Mrs. Rooney’s legal team, he ultimately concluded that they had not committed wrongdoing.
In written submissions for the appeal against the decision last month, Mr. Carpenter claimed that Mrs. Rooney had “substantially understated” her costs by around 40% in her 2021 budget, known as a “precedent H,” and therefore the amount Mrs. Vardy should pay should be reduced.
Benjamin Williams KC, representing Mrs. Rooney, argued in his written submissions that her budget was “properly and accurately completed” and there was no credible case of misconduct.
In a separate ruling on Thursday, Mrs. Vardy was mostly unsuccessful in her request for access to additional documents concerning costs.
Her lawyers had requested privileged documents, details regarding Mrs. Rooney’s VAT claim, and further information about retainers between Mrs. Rooney and her solicitors in February.
Mrs. Rooney’s legal team opposed the request, labeling it 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 denied Mrs. Vardy’s lawyers’ request to inspect VAT documents or other privileged material, but ruled that they could view a redacted retainer between Mrs. Rooney and her solicitors.
Judge Whalan also ordered Mrs. Vardy to pay nearly £11,000 in costs for the application, noting that it was “the defendant and not the claimant” who had achieved success.
Following the rulings, a spokesperson for Mrs. Vardy stated, “Regarding the two judgments today, we are pleased that disclosure was granted in one ruling while respectfully acknowledging that our appeal was unsuccessful in the other judgment.
“We now aim to move forward and focus on the future. We will not be making any further comments at this time.”