Vardy 1, Wagatha 0
Rebekah wins first round of court battle as judge decides she WAS the target of Coleen’s Instagram post
REBEKAH Vardy won the first round in the War of the Wags yesterday after a British High Court judge ruled Coleen Rooney did point the finger at her.
Judge Warby f ound that Mrs Rooney ‘ clearly identified’ Mrs Vardy, 38, when she accused her of leaking stories from her private Instagram account to a newspaper.
At a preliminary libel hearing, the judge was asked to examine the true meaning of the words used by Mrs Rooney, 34, in her accusatory online post last year.
Mrs Rooney, wife of former England captain Wayne Rooney, publicly blamed her rival for the leaks following a ‘sting
‘Composed with some care’
operation’ that earned her the nickname ‘Wagatha Christie’.
Lawyers acting for Mrs Rooney had argued that her notorious outburst simply meant that there were ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ her rival Wag.
But Judge Warby ruled the message contained the clear allegation that it was Mrs Vardy who ‘ regularly and f requently abused her status as a trusted follower of Mrs Rooney’s personal Instagram account’.
He said Mrs Rooney’s message was ‘a considered post’, which used ‘ wording composed with some care’.
‘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,’ he said.
‘It tells a story. The story is one of careful investigation, and builds to a revelation.’
He added: ‘In my judgment, the tweet and post complained of clearly suggest that [Mrs Vardy] is the person who i s guilty of the wrongdoing identified.’
The judge also dismissed the assertion that the allegation pointed the finger at Mrs Vardy’s Instagram account, and not the Wag herself.
Judge Warby ordered Mrs Rooney to pay Mrs Vardy’s legal fees of £23,000 (€26,000).
The ruling paves the way for a full libel trial between the Wags, likely to take place next summer.
Mrs Vardy, wife of former England striker Jamie Vardy, is suing Mrs Rooney, claiming aggravated damages, and is seeking an injunction preventing her repeating the allegations. Both sides have agreed to make a final effort to resolve the year-long feud through mediation – expected to be held before Christmas – to avoid a costly, and potentially embarrassing, trial.
During the hearing, Mrs Rooney’s lawyer David Sherborne said his client had repeatedly tried to stop the case from reaching court.
He said: ‘ She has been drawn into this litigation despite the f act she has offered on a number of occasions to mediate with the claimant, Mrs Vardy.’
Mrs Rooney began her detective work last year when l eaked stories about her appeared in newspapers.
The mother of four planted fake stories on her private Instagram account, then blocked all of her followers except Mrs Vardy.
When the stories appeared in The Sun, she posted: ‘For a few years now someone who I trusted to follow me on my personal Instagram account has been consistently informing The Sun newspaper of my private posts and stories.’
Of the fake stories, she added: ‘I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. It’s... Rebekah Vardy’s account.’ It sparked a bitter ri f t between the f ormer friends and led to Mrs Vardy receiving death threats, court papers show.
Mrs Vardy, who was seven months pregnant, immediately denied being to blame and said the incident left her fearing she would suffer a miscarriage. In the weeks and months after Mrs Rooney’s post, Mrs Vardy was on the receiving end of ‘extreme hostility’ from online trolls, the court heard.
She received one anonymous message expressing ‘genuine hope’ that she suffers an ‘extremely painful death’ and suggesting she ‘jump off a cliff ’.
During the hearing, her barrister Hugh Tomlinson QC said Mrs Rooney’s post was an ‘untrue and unjustified defamatory attack’ which left readers in no doubt that she was accusing Mrs Vardy of ‘consistently and repeatedly betraying her trust’.
Mrs Vardy, who is training for next year’s Dancing On I ce TV s how, ‘ s uff ered extreme distress, hurt, anxiety and embarrassment as a result’. Mr Tomlinson argued that Mrs Rooney’s post created a ‘highly damaging, false and permanent digital footprint’ about her.
‘Extreme hostility’