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]

@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.

I would be surprised if it is a £1 win. However, if it is, Vardy will almost certainly have to pay the costs of both sides from May 2020 onwards, as that is when Rooney first offered to settle. That would be the vast bulk of the legal costs.

The "honest opinion" approach is difficult. Some cases have suggested that an allegation such as this is not a matter of opinion no matter how you dress it up. Other cases have suggested the opposite. Simply saying, "I believe it was RV" would almost certainly not qualify as an honest opinion.

[PortiaFimbriata]

I don't think honest opinion would have flown. But if CR had explicitly said "someone with access to RV's account has leaked this, and I'm appealing to Rebekah, if it wasn't her, to track down the culprit" then I think she'd have been OK, because she'd have restricted herself to the provable truth and not said it in such a way as to imply it was definitely RV herself.

[ValerieCupcake]

@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!!

Just think about the whole merry go round. What is the point of any of it? Apart from this ridiculous circus of a trial. What have either of them achieved? Why did they not just get on with life? Posting things about one another? Why? They're all mad.

[ImAvingOops]

I think the point of it from CR perspective was a) to put a stop to her acquaintances selling the details of her life to the papers and b)to show that she is not some thick wag without the sense to work it out or put a stop to it.
From the info released in the trial,I'd say she's been successful, since iirc there was no argument that the info didn't come from RV account, only that RV didn't have sole access. CR worked out where the leak originated and has put a stop to it.
Vardy's reputation is in the toilet now and I'd be surprised if many people wanted to socialise with her going forward. Whether she wins legally or not, and regardless of what it cost, CR has probably achieved her aims - I doubt in future if anyone she knows will sell stories about her. In her shoes I might consider it money well spent.

[Pedallleur]

It's the modern phenomena. Life by Social Media. It's interesting watching the legal system come to terms with it and there will prob be a whole section of law opening up on the subject altho Rooneys barrister was using law from 1722 to try the case.

[prh47bridge]

@Pedallleur

It's the modern phenomena. Life by Social Media. It's interesting watching the legal system come to terms with it and there will prob be a whole section of law opening up on the subject altho Rooneys barrister was using law from 1722 to try the case.

The 1722 case set a precedent that where, as in this case, evidence goes missing, the assumption should be that the missing evidence is of the highest possible value that would fit. Rooney's lawyer was using it to try to persuade the judge to assume that the missing messages, etc., would have proved that Vardy was responsible for the leaks. I very much doubt that we need a new law to replace this. And, in all honesty, the courts are generally pretty good at interpreting the law to fit new situations. I don't personally see anything in this case that suggests any need for changes to the law.