The "Wagatha Christie" Coleen Rooney/ Rebekah Vardy court case

[Iwantacatnotcovid]

Is anyone else following it?

Vardy's phone was accidentally dropped into the North Sea... Yeah right!

[prh47bridge]

@ImAvingOops

I still can't get my head around how you can defame a person by accusing them of things they have a proven history of actually doing!

That is one of the things the judge will have to consider. It is only libel if it can cause serious harm to your reputation. If you don't have a good reputation to start with, serious harm is unlikely.

[TigerLilyTail]

What I don't understand is that if the average person was supposed to think that by saying RV's account that it meant RV herself was in someway responsible, then why doesn't that logic apply back to CR? When CR had evidence that RV's account was behind the leaks, then surely it was reasonable for her to assume that RV was involved?

I also don't understand why if RV had no knowledge of the leaks coming from her account but knew that others had access, surely her response to the accusation would be "That's terrible! While, I would personally never do something like that, others have access to my account, so I will personally check and make sure nothing like this happens again".

[guinnessguzzler]

Precisely! And personally I thought it was really clear that '... it's Rebekah Vardy's account' meant exactly that. I think the previous ruling on that specific issue was grossly unfair. It was Rebekah Vardy's account and that's what Colleen said.

[PortiaFimbriata]

It's not a defence to libel that you honestly believe that what you're saying is true (unless you're claiming the specific defence of "honest opinion" which Rooney isn't). It needs to actually be true.

The problem with CR's "I only said it was her account, I never said it was her" defence is that a quick search of Twitter from the day will show you a hundred posts saying "Blimey, what a total snake RV has turned out to be" and literally none saying "goodness, I wonder who the guilty party with access to RV's Instagram account could be". It does make the "what would the ordinary person have concluded" argument a lot more decisive.

[prh47bridge]

@guinnessguzzler

Precisely! And personally I thought it was really clear that '... it's Rebekah Vardy's account' meant exactly that. I think the previous ruling on that specific issue was grossly unfair. It was Rebekah Vardy's account and that's what Colleen said.

Except it isn't what she said.

Whilst Rooney's final sentence was "it was Rebekah Vardy's account", her previous sentence stated, "just one person has viewed them", not "just one account", and she started by saying that "someone I trusted" had been giving stories to the Sun, not "someone with access to the account of someone I trusted". Reading the whole thread that she posted, it is clearly an accusation that Vardy was leaking, not just someone with access to her account. And, as @PortiaFimbriata says, that is clearly what people reading her posts understood. It is also how it was reported in the press at the time. The Guardian headline, for example, was, "Coleen Rooney accuses Rebekah Vardy of leaking stories to Sun", not that she was accusing someone with access to Vardy's account. The judge was therefore absolutely correct to decide that the ordinary person reading Rooney's posts would interpret them as an accusation that Vardy was leaking to the press.

[ImAvingOops]

But if Vardy had said that it wasn't her but other do have access to her account, lots of people would have thought that was feasible because we all know that celebrities employ people to manage their accounts. And it would have avoided all those nasty texts becoming public and the dredging up of the Peter Andre story and all the other unsavoury things she's said and done.

If CR loses then she still saves total face by putting out a statement that it's impossible to prove a case with the evidence missing and no testimony from Watt. The public has had it laid out exactly how Vardy talks about people, her willingness to throw anyone under the bus, even using CR little sister. Rooney really can't lose.

[Muckymaisonette]

I’m surprised RV wasn’t asked to clarify the alleged amount of money she had ever received from the Sun regarding stringing WAG stories and how much of this went to her agent as commission (or vice versa if her agent was getting most of the money and giving RV commission for letting her see her IG).

[heyhi]

Any predictions on what the likely outcome is here? Is it up to the judge to decide what award is made if RV wins? Who will be responsible for legal costs?

[Muckymaisonette]

I’ve got a feeling that RV will win on a technicality, even though she has been (allegedly) economical with the truth.

[prh47bridge]

@ImAvingOops

But if Vardy had said that it wasn't her but other do have access to her account, lots of people would have thought that was feasible because we all know that celebrities employ people to manage their accounts. And it would have avoided all those nasty texts becoming public and the dredging up of the Peter Andre story and all the other unsavoury things she's said and done.

If CR loses then she still saves total face by putting out a statement that it's impossible to prove a case with the evidence missing and no testimony from Watt. The public has had it laid out exactly how Vardy talks about people, her willingness to throw anyone under the bus, even using CR little sister. Rooney really can't lose.

Vardy's father initially said her account must have been hacked. If that was the case, Rooney should lose as her accusation was wrong. However, reaction at the time suggests that people didn't buy that story.

Vardy has now thrown her agent under the bus, apparently claiming that Watt was leaking stories to the Sun without her knowledge. If that was the case, Rooney should lose.

My personal view is that Rooney should win as it appears likely, both from the evidence that has been reported and the destruction of material that should have been disclosed, that Vardy was leaking through her agent or, at the very least, that she knew her agent was leaking. However, I only have the same reports as everyone else to go on. I don't know how the witnesses came across in court, nor do I have access to the bundle of evidence that has been provided to the judge.

[PortiaFimbriata]

@heyhi

Any predictions on what the likely outcome is here? Is it up to the judge to decide what award is made if RV wins? Who will be responsible for legal costs?

General rule is "loser pays the costs of both sides".

But the costs the winner can claim are usually discounted a bit (aka "taxed" for reasonability). And crucially if the respondent has made a reasonable offer of settlement and the claimant has refused it and the judge then awards lower damages then the claimant bears the costs of both sides from that moment on because they obviously should have accepted it and saved everyone's time and money.

What I don't know is how that applies to the current situation , where as I understand it CR offered a financial settlement but refused a public apology.

[ImAvingOops]

If I was CR I'd be glad that this case has gone ahead and that RV didn't settle because CR has come out of it looking as if she was right, irrespective of the legal result. In the court of public opinion (and to the people in RV's social circle) Vardy has been totally shown up to look both guilty and nasty. And she did it all to herself. If I was CR I'd be feeling vindicated

[prh47bridge]

@PortiaFimbriata

General rule is "loser pays the costs of both sides".

But the costs the winner can claim are usually discounted a bit (aka "taxed" for reasonability). And crucially if the respondent has made a reasonable offer of settlement and the claimant has refused it and the judge then awards lower damages then the claimant bears the costs of both sides from that moment on because they obviously should have accepted it and saved everyone's time and money.

What I don't know is how that applies to the current situation , where as I understand it CR offered a financial settlement but refused a public apology.

You are correct as to the rules.

If Rooney's offers did not include a public apology, the judge may decide that it would be unjust to make Vardy pay Rooney's costs since the offer was made.

[guinnessguzzler]

@prh47bridge Ahh, ok, thanks for clarifying. Still seems bloody unfair though!

[LadyEloise1]

@ImAvingOops

If I was CR I'd be glad that this case has gone ahead and that RV didn't settle because CR has come out of it looking as if she was right, irrespective of the legal result. In the court of public opinion (and to the people in RV's social circle) Vardy has been totally shown up to look both guilty and nasty. And she did it all to herself. If I was CR I'd be feeling vindicated

I agree with you.
It must have been really stressful though.

[ThreeRingCircus]

@ImAvingOops

If I was CR I'd be glad that this case has gone ahead and that RV didn't settle because CR has come out of it looking as if she was right, irrespective of the legal result. In the court of public opinion (and to the people in RV's social circle) Vardy has been totally shown up to look both guilty and nasty. And she did it all to herself. If I was CR I'd be feeling vindicated

I also agree. The Rooney's aren't short of money. If I were Colleen and I lost on a technicality and incurred a lot of costs I'd still probably think it was worth it to show everyone what a nasty piece of work Vardy is.

Those messages from RV about CR's dead sister would cement it for me. I suppose you should take the moral high ground but if I were CR and read that I'd stop at nothing to show the world what a snake RV is. The poetic justice is that by pursuing the case, RV has brought this all on herself.

[Crazykatie]

I predict that RV wins gets awarded £1 damages and each side pays their own costs.
CR did not start the action so should not pay other sides costs.

[PortiaFimbriata]

CR did not start the action so should not pay other sides costs

That's not generally how it works in England. Eg if you get injured due to your employer's negligence and successfully sue them for compensation then your employer has to pay your legal fees. They can't get away with saying "I shouldn't have to pay her costs because it was her choice to sue me."

However that's just the general rule, and especially if the damages awarded are nominal and depending on settlement offers made the judge does have discretion on who pays what.

[WithAnXXHere]

Surely Coleen offering to settle goes against Coleen as it suggest her guilt?

But yes, Coleen has won morally either way.

[prh47bridge]

@WithAnXXHere

Surely Coleen offering to settle goes against Coleen as it suggest her guilt?

But yes, Coleen has won morally either way.

No, it doesn't go against her as far as the judge is concerned. If anything, it goes for her as the judge was encouraging them to settle. The courts never regard an offer to settle as an admission of liability.

[Zippidy123]

The actions of the Vardys that the court case has brought to light (the texts about Danielle Lloyd's miscarriages, the previous article about Peter Andre, Colleen's sister, destruction of evidence, blaming the PR when Vardy clearly knew what was going on, leaking info about other football players, the statement they made outside court rather than under oath) has been far worse and more damaging than what Colleen originally accused her of. Talk about an own goal!!

[heyhi]

@Zippidy123

The actions of the Vardys that the court case has brought to light (the texts about Danielle Lloyd's miscarriages, the previous article about Peter Andre, Colleen's sister, destruction of evidence, blaming the PR when Vardy clearly knew what was going on, leaking info about other football players, the statement they made outside court rather than under oath) has been far worse and more damaging than what Colleen originally accused her of. Talk about an own goal!!

Completely agree. RV must be thick if she thought this would be anything other than the train crash it has been for her. Not sure whether her legal team have a duty to have warned her about this.

[prh47bridge]

@heyhi

Completely agree. RV must be thick if she thought this would be anything other than the train crash it has been for her. Not sure whether her legal team have a duty to have warned her about this.

I would expect her lawyers to have warned her that libel cases, particularly high-profile ones, are rarely worth it. They often cause more damage to your reputation than the comments about which you are complaining.

I would also expect her lawyers to have warned her that the judge is entitled to draw adverse inferences if evidence is destroyed. The fact that a large amount of evidence that was ordered to be disclosed has nonetheless been destroyed leads me to believe that either it genuinely was accidental, which seems unlikely, or Vardy is one of those people who thinks she is cleverer than everyone else and that destroying evidence of what she has done will ensure that she wins the case.

[TigerLilyTail]

By the sounds of it many people told the Vardys to drop the case. The seem the type who thinks they know best though.

[burnoutbabe]

i think it will be a win for Vardy but a £1 win. And both sides pay their own costs. Which is a shame for Colleen, having to foot legal bills but then posting something like that on Instragram was always bound to cause trouble and anybody she told pre posting could have told her to check with her legal team before she did anything. She clearly didn't bother.

if she had worded her post a bit differently, she could have claimed HONEST opinion, but as she claimed it was A FACT, could only use truth as a defence.