The Courier & Advertiser (Perth and Perthshire Edition)
Round one goes to Vardy
Rebekah Vardy has won the first round of her libel battle against Coleen Rooney after she was accused of leaking stories about Rooney’s private life to the media.
Mrs Rooney, 34, accused Mrs Vardy, 38, of leaking “false stories” about her private life last October after carrying out a months-long “sting o p e r a t i o n” wh i c h s aw her dubbed “Wa g a t h a Christie”.
The wife of former England star Wa y n e Rooney claimed fellow footballer’s wife Mrs Vardy shared fake stories she had posted on her personal Instagram account with The Sun newspaper.
Yesterday the High Court ruled the post “clearly identified” her as being “guilty of the serious and consistent breach of trust”.
Mrs Rooney wrote on Instagram and Twitter: “I have saved and s c r e e n s h o tt e d all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them.
“It’s ... Rebekah Vardy’s account.”
Mr s Va r d y, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, denies the accusations and is suing Mrs Roone y for damages for libel.
In his judgment, 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 ne wspaper 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”.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Warby 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.”
Mr Justice Warby also ordered Mrs Rooney to pay Mr s Va r d y just under £23,000 in costs for Thursday’s hearing.
The court also heard both Mrs Vardy and Mrs Rooney had agreed for a “stay” of the proceedings until February so there could be “one final attempt to resolve t h e m a tt e r without the need for a full trial”.