Rebekah Vardy’s lawyers argue that Coleen Rooney understated her costs in the Wagatha Christie case, seeking a reduction in fees.
Rebekah Vardy’s legal team has accused Coleen Rooney’s lawyers of serious misconduct in a continuing dispute over legal costs from the ‘Wagatha Christie’ libel case. Vardy, who lost the 2022 high-profile defamation case, was ordered to pay over £1.8 million to Rooney for 90% of her legal fees. However, Vardy’s legal team is challenging the amount, alleging that Rooney deliberately understated her costs during an earlier hearing.
During the October 2024 hearing, Vardy’s barristers claimed that the costs submitted by Rooney were misleading, accusing her legal team of “serious misconduct” in understating their costs. Despite these claims, a judge ruled there had been no misconduct.
However, in a fresh appeal, Jamie Carpenter KC, representing Vardy, argued that Rooney had substantially understated her legal costs by around 40% in a budget document, presenting an incorrect figure to the court. Carpenter contended that Rooney’s legal team concealed the true costs from both Vardy and the court during the budgeting process.
Carpenter also suggested that a “proportionate sanction” would be to limit the amount Vardy should pay towards Rooney’s legal fees to £220,955.07 for costs incurred up until August 2021.
Rooney, who is married to former England captain Wayne Rooney, has strongly opposed the appeal. Her legal team insists there is no basis for the misconduct claims, arguing that the budget submitted was not intended to be an accurate representation of total costs but rather a guideline for reasonable and proportionate legal expenses.
The legal dispute stems from a 2019 accusation by Rooney that Vardy had leaked her private information to the press, which was deemed “substantially true” by the court in 2022. As a result, Vardy was ordered to pay a significant portion of Rooney’s legal fees.
The case continues to unfold, with both sides still locked in a bitter battle over the financial aspects of the case. The hearing is expected to conclude shortly, but the dispute over legal costs remains unresolved.
