[ad_1]
Coleen Rooney has disputed “misleading” claims made in the High Court by Rebekah Vardy, who is challenging the “sheer magnitude” of costs she has to pay the former as a result of 2022’s Wagatha libel trial.
Mrs Vardy lost that case after a judge ruled it was “substantially true” she had leaked Mrs Rooney’s private information to the press, and was ordered to pay 90% of Mrs Rooney’s costs, which has reached more than £1.8m.
On Tuesday, Robin Dunne, representing Mrs Rooney in the costs dispute, said claims made in court on Monday about hotel costs incurred by a lawyer representing her in 2022 were “factually incorrect”.
Mrs Vardy’s KC Jamie Carpenter had said Mrs Rooney’s total included costs for a lawyer staying “at the Nobu Hotel, incurring substantial dinner and drinks charges as well as mini bar charges”.
But Mr Dunne, noting the charges been widely reported in the media as “evidence of the defendant wildly spending”, said they were “potentially defamatory” and steps would be taken.
He added that a “modest” hotel had been booked for the lawyer, but on the first night there had been no wi-fi or working shower, so he transferred to the Nobu after Mrs Rooney’s agent said she could get reduced rates.
A room at Nobu ordinarily costs £650 but was charged at £295, which he said was the same price as a room at a Premier Inn.
Addressing the claim that £225 had been spent on a food and minibar tab, Mr Dunne said the minibar bill had actually come to £7 for two bottles of water, and that the lawyer had not eaten at the Nobu restaurant during his stay.
Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker rejected one of Mrs Vardy’s claims that it was “unreasonable” for Mrs Rooney to use Stewarts, a London-based law firm, and that she should have sought one near to where she lived in the north west of England.
Mr Gordon-Saker said: “This was always going to be a high-profile case and it attracted significant press coverage both here and elsewhere.
“Defamation is still a specialist area and most of the firms who specialise in defamation are based in central London.”
Regarding the size of the claim and the importance of the matter to the “reputations at stake”, he said “instructing a solicitor in central London was a reasonable choice”.
The judge also rejected Mrs Vardy’s claim that it had been unreasonable for Mrs Rooney to consult her barrister, David Sherborne, on 30 occasions, at a cost of nearly £500,000.
Mr Gordon-Saker added that the conduct of Mrs Vardy – in particular destroying evidence – “adds to the complexity” and “clearly justifies rates in excess of the guidelines” for the most experienced lawyers.
But he did say less experienced lawyers should have been charged at a lower hourly rate.
Mrs Rooney, the wife of former England captain Wayne Rooney, was nicknamed Wagatha Christie in 2019 after saying she had conducted a sting operation to find out who had leaked stories about her from her private Instagram to the Sun newspaper. She concluded: “It’s…. Rebekah Vardy’s account.”
That post led Mrs Vardy, the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, to sue her for libel, and the trial attracted huge interest when it reached court two years ago.
Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that Mrs Rooney’s accusation was “substantially true”, saying it was likely Mrs Vardy “knew of, condoned and was actively engaged” in the process of leaking stories about Mrs Rooney to the Sun in collaboration with Mrs Vardy’s agent, Caroline Watt.
Mrs Rooney branded the trial “horrible” in an interview with British Vogue last year.
She suggested she could not forgive Mrs Vardy for her libel claim, but said “the relief was everything” to win.
Mrs Vardy went on to trademark the phrase “Wagatha Christie” after losing.
The case also inspired the Olivier Award-nominated play, Vardy V Rooney: The Wagatha Christie Trial.
[ad_2]
Source link
