Colleen lost?!?

[OwlOne]

She owes Rebekeh vardy 23,000 costs.
Wow.
Surprised by that.

Only the first stage.

She tried to argue that her Instagram post was only accusing Rebecca vardy’s account, not Rebecca vardy herself.

It was a stupid argument tbh, I’m
Surprised they bothered to run it.

These two are pathetic. They're 'famous' for being married to footballers and they're fighting it out in court over schoolgirl stuff.

Yeah, I suppose she tried to word it cleverly but the implicature that RV was responsible or heavily involved was still clear to any reader even if it didn't say that outright. I wonder whether a different judge would think differently on appeal but I think this is common sense.

The next part of the trial will vindicate colleen.
I think they'll go over the facts, whether the allegation was true or not. Seems weird that they called it libel before looking to see if it was true or not. Wrong order!

Wrong order!

Not wrong order at all. First step is to establish if a defamatory statement has been made against the claimant. Next the court considers if any defences apply.

Colleen has said she did not defame the claimant, Rebecca. That point has failed so now she must rely on her defences, one of which will be the truthful nature of the statement.

It’s not the wrong order.

First question is - was there a statement that insulted or hurt Rebecca vardy personally. Answer is yes, obviously.

Second question - was Colleen legally justified in making that statement? One possible justification would be if her statement was true.

Third question - if Colleen was not justified in her statement, what damage has been done to Rebecca vardy and how could she be compensated.

But they have ruled on 1) before determining 2)

@OwlOne

But they have ruled on 1) before determining 2)

Yes, that's how it works.

Yes.

They have decided whether the statement could be defamatory.

If it’s not defamatory then there’s no case, so there’s no point going through the more complex process of deciding whether Colleen has a defence.

This is how absolutely all libel cases work. If you’re interested it’s pretty easy to find out more about the law on libel, just Google it.

Thanks @Pahrump seems odd to me but i understand that i dont know the process. Just seems like they are looking at the facts last!!
I suppose rv was made look bad. But is that defamatory if she DID IT

No; if she did it and Colleen can prove that, then Colleen would have a defence so wouldn’t be held liable for defamation.

If Colleen wins overall, will this initial costs award be refunded?

I don't think the judge understands the social media platforms because Colleen set up the trap and RV walked in to it. Colleen screenshotted everything.

@TweeBree

If Colleen wins overall, will this initial costs award be refunded?

I was wondering this.

Whether or not anybody thinks they're a couple of stupid wags fighting over nothing or not, Colleen set it up to let RV incriminate herself. So the digital trail is there. I guess sometimes the judge doesn't understand the evidence. But, that remains to be seen. maybe they'll surprise us.

These two silly women need to top this nonsense. Total waste of money that could go to a good cause.

Nobody cares about the lives of wags except other wags. Pointless lives of pointless people.

*stop this nonsense

I guess sometimes the judge doesn't understand the evidence.

But you're making that assertion based on not understanding the law on libel or how a libel case proceeds!

I'm not keen on either of them but this whole things ridiculous. Rebekah vardy thinks she is this big celeb but she isn't.

No, Colleen won’t get that money back.

This was a dispute about the correct interpretation of the law and the meaning of the original post.

Colleen’s team lost, because they were wrong about the correct interpretation.

So it wouldn’t be fair to make Rebecca vardy pay for this bit of the dispute, whatever else happens. Her team was right but had to incur costs to argue with colleen’s team.

Lawsuits are usually full of costs judgments on different points, not unusual at all for one side to win overall but still have to pay some of the other side’s costs for the points they were wrong on.

And it’s absurd to suggest the judge doesn’t understand the evidence. The screenshots etc have not even been introduced to the court, they were not relevant to the arguments that have been dealt with so far.

Op

I’m not sure you’re grasping the importance to the first stage

Colleen has tried to argue she didn’t accuse vardy. She accused her account.

This is because if she accuses the account, it then doesn’t matter who accessed it, who told who, and who eventually sold it to th sun. It would still be the leak came from the account

The judge has said, and rightly. That Colleen did not accuse th account. She accused vardy herself. Which means now Colleen and her legal team need to prove no one else accessed the account, and that Colleen didn’t tell any one she sold it to the sun, or the person she told didn’t tell anyone, and they didn’t sell it to the sun vardy did.

It’s much much more complex now for Colleen, and if she’d won this round it would not have mattered who accessed th account, who told who, ans them who they told and then who was selling it.

Now she needs to prove it was what she said, it was vardy and no one else.

Think about that. Apparantly several people had access to the account. Vardy herself told someone else. Who did that person tell? And who did they tell? How far was the chain before it was the person who sold it.

If Colleen had won the first round and as she tried to claim she wasn’t accusing vardy herself, but that the leak came from that account it would be very easy for Colleen to win.

Now it’s a whole different ballgame. And you’d have to assume the fact that Colleen lied and tried to pretend she didn’t accuse vardy jist the account means she doesn’t actually know who sold it.

@LastGoldenDaysOfSummer

These two silly women need to top this nonsense. Total waste of money that could go to a good cause.

Nobody cares about the lives of wags except other wags. Pointless lives of pointless people.

I think it has more to do with feeling betrayed. Feeling defamed.

I don't care about either of them really but I'm interested to see what is determined because it raises interesting questions. Is it a crime to leak information? It is a crime to set a trap that you know somebody will walk in to? Is it a crime to say bad things about somebody's character even if they're true? But are you in more trouble with the law for creating a trap? Is it the trap that is worse (legally?).

All very interesting imo.

@Bluntness100, unnecessarily condescending je crois. I'm ASKING!

Failing to grasp something isn't a fair accusation when I'm not claiming I understand all of this. I find it very interesting though.

For fucksake.

No, leaking information is not a crime, setting this kind of trap is not a crime.

Accusing an individual of selling private stories to the tabloids is defamation. If the accusation is true then that’s a defence to the charge of defamation.

Maybe read a basic guide to libel law if you’re that interested.