Rebekah Vardy wins against Coleen Rooney in first round of ‘Wagatha Christie’ High Court battle

The judge rejected an argument from Rooney’s barrister that the multiple dots in the final line had “diluted” the impact of the “It’s Rebekah Vardy’s account” reveal

Rebekah Vardy has won the first round in her "Wagatha Christie" High Court battle with Coleen Rooney.

The two WAGs are at war over Rooney’s infamous Twitter post last October claiming to have found the source of a series of leaks to the media

The High Court ruled today that Mrs Rooney’s post accusing Ms Vardy of leaking stories about her private life to the media “clearly identified” her as being “guilty of the serious and consistent breach of trust that she alleges”.

Mrs Rooney, 34, accused Mrs Vardy, 38, of leaking “false stories” about her private life to the media last October, having carried out a “sting operation” which saw her dubbed “Wagatha Christie”.

The wife of former England star Wayne Rooney claimed fellow footballer’s wife Mrs Vardy shared fake stories she had posted on her personal Instagram account with The Sun newspaper.

The Twitter post ended with the now famous conclusion: "It's ..........Rebekah Vardy's account".

Mrs Vardy, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, denies the accusations and is suing Mrs Rooney for damages for libel.

Mr Justice Warby today ruled what meaning Rooney's post had to ordinary readers. 

In a judgment on Friday, Mr Justice Warby ruled that the “natural and ordinary” meaning of Mrs Rooney’s posts was that Mrs 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”.

Announcing his decision, the judge said that the meaning he had determined was “substantially the same as the claimant’s meaning”.

He said Mrs Rooney’s message was “a considered post, using wording composed with some care”, adding: “It would be clear to the ordinary reader from the outset that it was meant seriously, and intended to convey a message of some importance. It tells a story. 

“The story is one of careful investigation, and builds to a revelation.  The reader would pay more attention to this story than they might to a more obviously casual tweet or post.  

“But I do not think it really matters how one approaches this publication. Whether it is read swiftly and casually or at greater leisure, the impression conveyed is the same.  

“The reader is told straight away that the message is about bad behaviour by ‘someone who I trusted’.  The post then takes the form of a ‘whodunnit’.”

He said Rooney sets out how her investigation unfold, her determination to find the culprit, and the conclusion was “unequivocal”.  

“In my judgment, the tweet and post complained of clearly suggest that the claimant (Vardy) is the person who is guilty of the wrongdoing identified.”

The judge rejected Mrs Rooney’s contention that she simply referred to Mrs Vardy’s Instagram account, rather than Mrs Vardy herself.

The judge ruled: “I certainly do not think that the ordinary reader would take that single word (account), albeit repeated, to indicate that Mrs Rooney remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was.”

He added: “There is nothing in these words, apart from the word ‘account’, that in any way suggests that the behaviour of which Mrs Rooney is complaining might have been carried out by anyone other than the account holder, Mrs Vardy.”

Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy 
PA

The judge also rejected an argument from Rooney’s barrister, David Sherborne, that the multiple dots in the final line had “diluted” the impact of the “It’s Rebekah Vardy’s account” reveal.  

“The element of suspense introduced by the multiple dots seems to me designed to raise expectations of a dramatic revelation”, he said. “It tends to emphasise the importance of the name that is then provided.”

Vardy has brought libel proceedings against Rooney, saying the accusation of leaking stories was untrue and she has been unfairly painted as a “villain”. 

She claims the incident, when she was seven months pregnant, meant she “suffered very serious and widespread hostility and abuse”, and says she continues to feel the effects of the row.  

Rooney is arguing the post was justified as the central allegation – that Vardy was leaking stories – is true.  

They are considered a mediation process before February to try to end the dispute without a full-blown libel trial.  

The judge today ordered Rooney to pay Vardy’s £22,913.50 legal costs from this round of the court battle.  

Neither Rooney nor Vardy attended court for yesterday’s argument or today’s ruling, which was conducted with some people in court and others watching virtually. 

The sound was cut from the video feed to some observers for around three minutes of the hearing, moments after the ruling had been handed down.  

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in