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!

[Sarahbeeney]

Why the hell does Vardy need an ‘assistant’?!

She doesn’t actually do anything does she? apart from leak things about CR

She does come across as a total bitch and has the resting BF to go with it

[ElaineMarieBenes]

@prh47bridge ignore my question - I’ve looked it up and see the rules have changed a bit!

[prh47bridge]

[quote ElaineMarieBenes]@prh47bridge would you advise Rooney make a payment into court in the circumstances (am assuming this is possible in a libel trial? If not apologies as it is now over 20 years since I ditched my civil law career but always loved a payment into court situation and never understood why they weren’t more widely used!)[/quote]
Absolutely not. If Rooney went down this route, it would be an offer to settle. Vardy could then take the money and run, claiming she had been vindicated. Rooney believes she can prove that Vardy, or someone acting on her behalf, was leaking to the press. There is no way I would offer to settle at this stage based on the information currently in the public domain.

[prh47bridge]

[quote ElaineMarieBenes]@prh47bridge ignore my question - I’ve looked it up and see the rules have changed a bit![/quote]
Too late!

[Claymorekick]

Still always remember about Vardy selling a 'kiss and tell' story about her night with Peter Andre many years ago. That probably tells you exactly what you need to know about her character and motivations

[ElaineMarieBenes]

@prh47bridge 🙏- always like your replies!

[ChicCroissant]

The further the case goes, the worse Vardy looks - she doesn't want to back down, maybe she does think she'll win on a technicality but the damage it's going to do to her reputation long-term doesn't look worth it to me. And she's now had to admit to lying in her evidence, which is always the part that people remember rather than the case itself!

[Porridgealert]

@ChicCroissant

The further the case goes, the worse Vardy looks - she doesn't want to back down, maybe she does think she'll win on a technicality but the damage it's going to do to her reputation long-term doesn't look worth it to me. And she's now had to admit to lying in her evidence, which is always the part that people remember rather than the case itself!

Didn't Meghan Markle do similar and it didn't effect her court case?

[SamphiretheStickerist]

Ooh! Is the WAGatha vs Lemony Snickett case coming to a close?

I bloody hope so. Tedious women, the pair of them.

[Moneypennysfreedomfund]

Would they ask the judge to force the journalists to reveal their sources? Not sure how all of this works…

Have to say, it shows the sheer fragility of the relationships between the women ….

[prh47bridge]

@Moneypennysfreedomfund

Would they ask the judge to force the journalists to reveal their sources? Not sure how all of this works…

Have to say, it shows the sheer fragility of the relationships between the women ….

They can ask all they like but the judge won't do it. Forcing a journalist to reveal their sources is a breach of the European Human Rights Convention and is therefore prohibited by the Human Rights Act.

[prh47bridge]

Didn't Meghan Markle do similar and it didn't effect her court case?

She "misremembered" her contribution to an unauthorised biography, but it wasn't relevant to the issues in her case and NGN (publishers of the Mail and Mail on Sunday) didn't rely on it - indeed, they barely mentioned it in their argument to the court.

In this case, Rooney is trying to show that Vardy leaks to the press and Vardy has lied about leaking to the press. The court may disagree but that looks pretty relevant to me.

[ChicCroissant]

In this case, Rooney is trying to show that Vardy leaks to the press and Vardy has lied about leaking to the press. The court may disagree but that looks pretty relevant to me.

IIRC the Judge has already ruled that the phrase 'Rebekah Vardy's account' that Rooney used implied it was Vardy herself who leaked the stories. If she's going to throw her agent into the frame for the stories rather than herself, I wondered if she'd win on a technicality.

Meanwhile, back in the real world, I think it's massively relevant that Vardy denied leaking the stories and then generously provided written evidence of denial and lying on similar stories! I doubt the journo will be asked to provide their source and they rarely do even when they are asked.

[MarshaBradyo]

I had to Google as has no idea why Wagatha Christie was being mentioned

All sounds nuts but especially that that’s what the case is referred to

[prh47bridge]

If she's going to throw her agent into the frame for the stories rather than herself, I wondered if she'd win on a technicality.

I don't think so. If Watt was leaking with Vardy's knowledge and approval, I would expect the court to take the view that Vardy is responsible for the leaks. The only way I think Watt's involvement can help Vardy would be if Watt was leaking on her own account, without Vardy's knowledge. Since Vardy was clearly using Watt to leak other information to the press, I don't think that will fly.

[Muckymaisonette]

I think Colleen will lose the legal case (and a tonne of money) on some technicality, but I think RV will ultimately lose the public opinion battle - she’s coming across as not a nice person.

[prh47bridge]

@Muckymaisonette

I think Colleen will lose the legal case (and a tonne of money) on some technicality, but I think RV will ultimately lose the public opinion battle - she’s coming across as not a nice person.

Defamation cases are rarely won and lost on technicalities. Indeed, technicalities are far less common in legal cases than some people seem to think.

For this case, Vardy has to show that Rooney made the allegation of which she complains to third parties, that the allegation clearly refers to her and that it is defamatory. She clearly will have no problem with proving all three of those points.

Rooney's defence is that her allegation was substantially true. I can't see any technical points in that. Either it is true that Vardy is responsible for the leaks, or it isn't. I can't see any halfway house where Vardy is responsible, but there is some technical reason why Rooney's allegation is untrue. If the judge agrees that Vardy is responsible for the leaks, Rooney wins.

[TigerLilyTail]

Well, Coleen did say it was RV's Instagram account, which seems to be true, but it was Watts leaking from the account with RV's knowledge and permission. But the judge ruled that by saying RV's account that this meant RV herself. I do wonder if judges really understand about Instagram and how it works. Especially in the world of Z-listers.

[prh47bridge]

@TigerLilyTail

Well, Coleen did say it was RV's Instagram account, which seems to be true, but it was Watts leaking from the account with RV's knowledge and permission. But the judge ruled that by saying RV's account that this meant RV herself. I do wonder if judges really understand about Instagram and how it works. Especially in the world of Z-listers.

That misunderstands the ruling. The judge understands exactly how Instagram works. The judge ruled that it meant Vardy was responsible for the leaks, not someone with access to Vardy's account leaking without her knowledge. If the judge decides that Watt was leaking without Vardy's knowledge and approval, Vardy will win. However, if the judge decides that Watt was leaking on Vardy's behalf, Rooney should win.

[WinterDeWinter]

Fascinating, @prh47bridge, thank you.

[TigerLilyTail]

That misunderstands the ruling. The judge understands exactly how Instagram works. The judge ruled that it meant Vardy was responsible for the leaks, not someone with access to Vardy's account leaking without her knowledge. If the judge decides that Watt was leaking without Vardy's knowledge and approval, Vardy will win. However, if the judge decides that Watt was leaking on Vardy's behalf, Rooney should win.

Thank you for explaining!!

[SoonbeSpringtime]

The judge ruled that it meant Vardy was responsible for the leaks, not someone with access to Vardy's account leaking without her knowledge. If the judge decides that Watt was leaking without Vardy's knowledge and approval, Vardy will win. However, if the judge decides that Watt was leaking on Vardy's behalf, Rooney should win

Is this not just a matter of opinion though and another judge could have decided that if the owner of a social media account affords access to it, they still bear responsibility for how it’s used. I’m thinking in the same way as you can pay a professional to compile your tax returns but the responsibility is still your own.

For me it would be the difference between unauthorised access I.e. an account is hacked, or authorised use e.g. in RV’s case her passwords were stored on third party devices, ergo she is well aware there could be malicious access.

In theory could this lead to a ruling that individuals have a duty of care over their SM accounts and ultimate responsibility for actions resulting from misuse, beyond the oft seen ‘views are my own and not those of my employer’ for example.

Do such precedents exist? Or is the law running to catch up? I’m just pondering.

[prh47bridge]

@SoonbeSpringtime

The judge ruled that it meant Vardy was responsible for the leaks, not someone with access to Vardy's account leaking without her knowledge. If the judge decides that Watt was leaking without Vardy's knowledge and approval, Vardy will win. However, if the judge decides that Watt was leaking on Vardy's behalf, Rooney should win

Is this not just a matter of opinion though and another judge could have decided that if the owner of a social media account affords access to it, they still bear responsibility for how it’s used. I’m thinking in the same way as you can pay a professional to compile your tax returns but the responsibility is still your own.

For me it would be the difference between unauthorised access I.e. an account is hacked, or authorised use e.g. in RV’s case her passwords were stored on third party devices, ergo she is well aware there could be malicious access.

In theory could this lead to a ruling that individuals have a duty of care over their SM accounts and ultimate responsibility for actions resulting from misuse, beyond the oft seen ‘views are my own and not those of my employer’ for example.

Do such precedents exist? Or is the law running to catch up? I’m just pondering.

No, any judge would have arrived at the same conclusion.

The basic legal principle is that you are responsible for the acts of your employees carried out in the course of their employment. If, say, you employ a doctor to examine prospective staff and they assault your prospective employees, you are responsible. However, if the doctor assaults someone else after an evening out, you are not responsible. This is well established. Nothing that happens in this case will change that.

However, this is a libel case, not a case about an employer's vicarious liability. Vardy is clearly responsible for anything posted on her social media accounts regardless of who actually writes the post. If Watt had been posting Rooney's private information on Vardy's Instagram account, that would be a slam dunk for Rooney.

The judge's ruling means that, if it turns out that someone has hacked Vardy's account and they are responsible for the leaks, Vardy will win. If Watt is responsible for the leaks and is leaking with Vardy's knowledge and approval, Rooney should win. If Watt is responsible but is leaking on her own account, without Vardy's knowledge, I believe the judge will have to consider whether this is something she is doing in the course of her employment (in which case Vardy is responsible) or if this is too remote from her employment. Given that we know Vardy was using Watt to leak things to the press, I suspect that Vardy will lose if Watt is the source of the leaks even if Vardy was unaware that Watt was leaking and would not have approved of her doing so.

[WheresTheJustice2]

It seems pretty obvious that Vardy/Watts were behind the leaks. Why on Earth is Vardy going on with the case? It just doesn’t make any sense or am I missing something here?

@prh47bridge you seem to be clued up on the legalities of this case. Am I being totally thick in wondering how on Earth Vardy can win?

[prh47bridge]

@WheresTheJustice2

It seems pretty obvious that Vardy/Watts were behind the leaks. Why on Earth is Vardy going on with the case? It just doesn’t make any sense or am I missing something here?

*@prh47bridge* you seem to be clued up on the legalities of this case. Am I being totally thick in wondering how on Earth Vardy can win?

Vardy's lawyers have denied that some of the messages quoted by Rooney's lawyers refer to Rooney and claim that the full conversations show that Vardy and Watt were not leaking. If Vardy can convince the judge that, on the balance of probabilities, she was not responsible for the leaks, she will win.

My personal view is that it doesn't look good for her, but we don't have all the evidence yet. A lot may depend on how Vardy comes across in court.