Coleen Rooney, left, said she was pleased the ruling went in her favour, but that she never believed the case involving Rebekah Vardy, right, should have gone to court. Photo / Getty Images
Coleen Rooney, left, said she was pleased the ruling went in her favour, but that she never believed the case involving Rebekah Vardy, right, should have gone to court. Photo / Getty Images
Rebekah Vardy has refused to accept a High Court ruling in the "Wagatha Christie" case that she was responsible for leaking stories about Coleen Rooney, saying the judge has "got it wrong".
The wife of England and Leicester City footballer Jamie Vardy lost her libel claim against Rooney and now faces a legal bill of up to GBP£3 million ($5.8m).
In a statement, Vardy said: "I am extremely sad and disappointed at the decision that the judge has reached.
"It is not the result that I had expected, nor believe was just. I brought this action to vindicate my reputation and am devastated by the judge's finding … she got it wrong, and this is something I cannot accept."
Vardy had sued in the High Court over a viral social media post in which Rooney accused her of leaking or authorising the leak of stories from Rooney's private Instagram account.
But Justice Steyn ruled that Vardy and her then agent, Caroline Watt, were responsible for the leaks.
The judge said it was "likely that Ms Watt undertook the direct act, in relation to each post, of passing information to a journalist at The Sun, but found that the claimant [Vardy] knew of, condoned and was actively engaged in this process".
Coleen Rooney said in a statement that she was "pleased" the ruling went in her favour but that she "never believed" the case should have gone to court "at such expense in times of hardship for so many people when the money could have been far better spent helping others".
Coleen Rooney has successfully defended the libel claims brought against her by Rebekah Vardy. Photo / Getty Images
Justice Steyn said in her ruling that "significant parts of Mrs Vardy's evidence were not credible" and some parts were "implausible" and "manifestly inconsistent" with the facts.
"I find that it is, unfortunately, necessary to treat Mrs Vardy's evidence with very considerable caution," the judge said.
"There were many occasions when her evidence was manifestly inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentary evidence ... and others where she was evasive.
"Mrs Vardy was generally unwilling to make factual concessions, however implausible her evidence.
"This inevitably affects my overall view of her credibility, although I have borne in mind that untruthful evidence may be given to mask guilt or to fortify innocence."
Vardy's evidence has to be treated with "very considerable caution", the judge said. Photo / Getty Images
By contrast, "Mrs Rooney was an honest and reliable witness".
Rooney posted a series of fake stories - about seeking gender selection in Mexico for a fifth child, a flood in the basement of her Cheshire home, and plans for a TV career - in order to smoke out the culprit.
The post ended with the big reveal: "It's … Rebekah Vardy's account."
Vardy denied leaking the stories and sued Rooney for libel. Rooney defended the claim on the basis that her post was "substantially true".
'It's not a case I ever sought or wanted'
Following the verdict, Coleen Rooney said: "Naturally, I am pleased that the judge has found in my favour with her judgment today.
"It was not a case I ever sought or wanted. I never believed it should have gone to court at such expense in times of hardship for so many people when the money could have been far better spent helping others.
"Both before and after my social media posts in October 2019, I made every effort to avoid the need for such a drawn-out and public court case. All my attempts to do so were knocked back by Mrs Vardy.
"This left me with no alternative but to go through with the case to defend myself and to end the repeated leaking of my private information to The Sun.
"These leaks from my private Instagram account began in 2017. They continued for almost two years, intruding on my privacy and that of my family. Although I bear Mrs Vardy no ill-will, today's judgment makes clear that I was right in what I said in my posts of October 2019.
"Finally, I would like to thank all of my legal team, my family, friends and everyone who supported me, including the public, through this difficult and stressful time."
During the High Court trial in May, Rooney's barrister, David Sherborne, QC, said Vardy had a "habitual and established practice" of leaking information to The Sun newspaper through her friend and agent, Caroline Watt.
Watt, who is no longer Vardy's agent, did not give evidence in the case. The court was told that she was too ill to attend, and that she could not hand over evidence of WhatsApp messages on her mobile phone because it had fallen into the North Sea while she was filming the coast of Scotland from a boat.
Watt said in written evidence that she dropped the phone when a wave hit the boat in choppy waters, claiming that it was "a genuine accident".
But the judge said: "The timing is striking. In my judgment, even taking this evidence on its own, the likelihood that the loss Ms Watt describes was accidental is slim."
Judge Steyn ruled it is "probable" that Rebekah Vardy (pictured) deleted WhatsApp messages. Photo / Getty Images
Justice Steyn said Vardy chose not to call her agent to give evidence partly because she knew her evidence "would be shown to be untrue".
Watt had been due to give evidence in support of Vardy, however, she withdrew her evidence pre-trial, with the court told it was due to health concerns.
The judge said: "I accept that her health has been adversely affected by these proceedings. In part, no doubt, that is because she is not someone who has previously been, or ever sought to be, in the public eye, and being a key witness in a trial of this nature would have been uncomfortable even if she had nothing to hide.
"However, I am compelled to the conclusion that the primary reason Ms Watt was so very reluctant to give evidence, and has suffered adversely from the pressure to do so, was that she knew that to a large extent the evidence in her statements was untrue."
The judge also said she did not believe Vardy's claim to have accidentally deleted key WhatsApp conversations with Watt.
"In my judgment, it is probable that Mrs Vardy deleted these messages. It is impossible to speculate what the messages and media files exchanged during this period may have shown, but the deletion of this material reinforces my conclusion that the loss by both Mrs Vardy and Ms Watt of their original WhatsApp conversation during the key period was not accidental."
Wayne Rooney (right) gave evidence during the trial, recounting a conversation he had with Jamie Vardy in which he said Vardy's media activities were a distraction. Photo / Getty Images
During the trial, Wayne Rooney gave evidence that he had spoken to his England teammate Jamie Vardy during Euro 2016, warning him that Mrs Vardy's media activities were proving a distraction.
Jamie Vardy denied that such a conversation had taken place. But the judge said: "That is more likely to reflect an understandable choice by Mr Vardy not to upset his wife."
Justice Steyn said Vardy had faced "vile abuse" from members of the public following Coleen Rooney's post.
She said: "Some members of the public have responded to the reveal post by subjecting Mrs Vardy to vile abuse, including messages wishing her, her family, and even her then-unborn baby, ill in the most awful terms.
"Nothing of which Mrs Vardy has been accused, nor any of the findings in this judgment, provide any justification or excuse for subjecting her or her family, or any other person involved in this case, to such vitriol."
'Degree of self-deception' on Vardy's part
Justice Steyn also said there was "a degree of self-deception" on Rebekah Vardy's part about her role in disclosing information.
She said: "Although significant parts of Mrs Vardy's evidence were not credible, my assessment is that she is genuinely offended by the accusation made against her by Mrs (Coleen) Rooney in the reveal post.
"However, that is not because she was not involved in disclosing information from the private Instagram account: I have found that she was.
"Rather, her indignation at the accusation flows, in my judgment, from a combination of factors."
"Mrs Vardy's part in disclosing information to The Sun was, it seems to me, unthinking rather than part of a considered and concerted business practice.
"Consequently, there has been a degree of self-deception on her part regarding the extent to which she was involved, as well as a degree of justified resentment at the exaggerated way in which her role has at times been presented during the litigation."
Vardy issued a plea to those who had subjected her to abuse to stop, and indicated she did not intend to appeal against the ruling, saying "the case is over".
She said: "As I explained in my evidence I, my family and even my unborn baby, were subjected to disgusting messages and vile abuse following Coleen's post and these have continued even during the course of the trial.
"Please can the people who have been abusing me and my family now stop. The case is over."
