@JenniferAlisonPhilipaSue
There's a very good legal-based summary here, which explains the judge's interpretation of the meaning of the words complained of.
davidallengreen.com/2022/07/a-guide-to-todays-wagatha-christie-judgment-a-case-that-should-never-have-gone-to-trial/
It is this construction that Rooney has to prove, in order to defend the claim successfully.
"At a preliminary hearing in November 2020, the judge largely agreed with Vardy and held that the meaning of the words complained of was:
“Over a period of years Ms Vardy had regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower of Ms Rooney’s personal Instagram account by secretly informing The Sun newspaper of Ms Rooney’s private posts and stories, thereby making public without Ms Rooney’s permission a great deal of information about Ms Rooney, her friends and family which she did not want made public.”
This was a set-back for Rooney, and it was seen at the time as a victory for Vardy.
The judge dismissed the argument that the average reader of the words complained of would realise that it would not just be Vardy personally who had access to Vardy’s account."
Note - this is separate to the cost order. From the same article:
"And it may be that the costs consequences of Vardy “winning” may be horrendous if Vardy turned down a so-called “Part 36 Offer” (or similar) that offered to settle at a higher amount."
More here on how a Part 36 Offer works: blackstonesolicitorsltd.co.uk/category/news/what-happens-if-a-part-36-offer-is-rejected/#.YuObgaTTVPw