Vardy has lost

[Viviennemary]

Yes. Good decision. I thought she might win. What a fiasco and waste of money

If you're sued you have to respond.

Barristers don't get a choice, do they?

Oops, yes, of course.

I think it's unfair to lump Rooney and Vardy together. This case has shown the way Vardy conducts herself. A lot has been dredged up about Vardy's behaviour and how she speaks about people and it doesn't reflect well. Rooney seems to have just wanted her privacy and to go about her life without people selling stories about her. That's fair enough.
Vardy was a fool for suing - if she'd left it alone she'd still have been able to deny it and many would have given her benefit of the doubt. Now people will call her a liar to her face and what can she say?
Rooney had no choice but to defend herself. She's not responsible for what barristers charge!
Maybe the real injustice is that only the rich can get justice?

An expensive waste of time!

I don't get all this 'people can't afford to pay their bills and these 2 are spending thousands on a stupid trial'

Coleen Rooney had no choice in the matter and as has been previously stated, made 4 attempts of stopping it going to trial.

It was Vardy who wanted her 15 minutes of fame. For fame hungry social climbers like her, no publicity is bad publicity. Can you please let me know when you have seen Coleen Rooney selling pictures, to the paps, contributing to columns in tabloids etc., courting any kind of publicity? Maybe when she was younger, but she's a mum of 4 living a life out of the limelight.

Vardy on the other hand has got egg all over her face and I am glad.

Sure there will be lots of sad face stories from her coming in the near future.

A reporter on Sky news said the judge said Vardys evidence was unrelaible which is apparently legal speak for we don't believe you. I mean a mobile falling into the North Sea.

The WAGS are so tedious. I wish they would go away. I wish footballers would stop marrying and going out with such vapid women.

Just scroll to any random page and I guarantee you'll be reading along and wondering how the judge managed not to laugh during the trial..!
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Vardy-v-Rooney-Trial-Judgment.pdf

I'm with you on this!

I don't know how she could appeal. Not liking the verdict isn't grounds.
And if I was her, I'd not fancy the prospect of Rooneys team cross examining Watt.

Good.
Couldn't have happened to a nicer woman.

Many footballers are pretty vapid themselves, I wouldn’t wish them on many women!

Rooney was the defendant so won't get any damages. Vardy will have to pay her legal costs, although that will still leave Rooney substantially out of pocket.

I agree her case was a joke, but no damage has been done to the lawyers. If you have a client who is willing to pay your standard rate, you must represent them or risk being struck off. You cannot make any statements you know are true, but you must put their case for them to the best of your ability. You can, of course, say, "I am instructed to say...", which basically says, "this is what my client says, but I know this is so ridiculous it wouldn't fool a five-year-old child".

My understanding is that Rooney tried to settle at least three times but Vardy refused.

I think she'd struggle. So far as I can see, most of the judgment is based on findings on the facts, and you can't appeal against those unless there is a very obvious mistake. The evidence was so blatant here that the judge would have been perverse to come to any other conclusion.

I'm afraid you don't understand the legal process if you think her lawyers should have withdrawn when Vardy refused to settle. Lawyers cannot do that. You must continue to represent the client even if they reject your advice.

The fact that Rooney offered to settle four times suggests she and her legal team weren't quite as confident as, er, you, that she'd win: clearly, they didn't think her case was an 'absolute joke'.

I suspect the advice to her was that it was worth a go to get rid of what must, on any interpretation, have been a total pain in the neck and avoid a lot of unpleasant publicity; also that, even with a strong case, there are never any absolute guarantees.

BBC say she has said she won't appeal but she insists that the judge got it wrong. On the evidence we have seen, I agree with the judge that she isn't remotely credible.

Even if she wants to appeal, she would have to apply for permission and demonstrate that she has at least an arguable case. It's difficult to see how she could claim that.

Lawyers win as in almost all libel cases. There ought to be something in law about falsehoods which is not as expensive to prove or defend.

Colleen didn't have much choice but to participate. She was the defendant. The judge gives CR a fair bit of credit in the judgment whereas RV is all but branded a liar - she was also the one who brought the action in the first place so she looks doubly stupid.

How do people know what was written in the WhatsApp group? Was it part of the case?

Most of the recovered messages (some were deleted) are in the Judgement!
www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Vardy-v-Rooney-Trial-Judgment.pdf