Vardy v Rooney case summary

Rebekah Vardy’s libel claim against Coleen Rooney was dismissed after the High Court held Rooney’s allegations substantially true. A 2025 appeal by Vardy concerning alleged misconduct over legal costs was also dismissed.

Facts

Rebekah Vardy sued Coleen Rooney for libel over a viral social media post Rooney made on 9 October 2019. Both women are high-profile figures – “well-known media and television personalities” married to former England footballers.

In Rooney’s post (dubbed the “Reveal Post”), she dramatically accused Vardy’s Instagram account of leaking her private Instagram stories to The Sun newspaper. Rooney explained that after months of suspicion, she set a trap by restricting access to her Instagram stories to just one account and posting false stories to see if they would appear in the press. When those fake stories did indeed make the tabloids, Rooney concluded her post with the now-famous line: “It’s ……….Rebekah Vardy’s account.”

Vardy immediately denied being the leaker. However, the accusation caused a media frenzy and even led to Vardy receiving abuse online. Vardy filed a defamation claim against Rooney in June 2020, asserting that the accusation falsely portrayed her as betraying Rooney’s trust by leaking private information.

Issues

The case raised multiple issues in defamation law. Key questions included:

• Meaning – What was the single meaning of Rooney’s “Reveal Post” to the ordinary reader, and was it defamatory of Vardy? A preliminary court ruling determined the post implied that “over a period of years Ms Vardy had regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower” of Rooney’s private Instagram, by secretly leaking Rooney’s private posts and stories to The Sun. This meaning was plainly defamatory if untrue.
• Serious Harm – Whether Rooney’s post caused serious harm to Vardy’s reputation, as required under the Defamation Act 2013. Given the post’s wide publication and Vardy’s resulting public vilification, this element was conceded to be met.
• Truth – Whether Rooney’s allegation was substantially true. Rooney defended the claim on the basis of truth, seeking to prove that Vardy (directly or via her agent) was responsible for leaking stories from Rooney’s private Instagram. This became the central issue at trial.
• Public Interest – Rooney also invoked the “public interest” defence under Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013. The court had to consider if Rooney’s post addressed a matter of public interest (e.g. the practice of leaking private celebrity information) and if she reasonably believed publishing it was in the public interest.
• Other – The proceedings also involved issues like destruction of evidence (a phone belonging to Vardy’s agent was infamously lost in the North Sea during disclosure) and extensive discussions of social media data. After the main trial, issues of legal costs loomed large, including whether either party’s conduct in the litigation justified penalties in costs.

Judgment (2022 Trial)

High Court Trial Outcome: After a high-profile seven-day trial in July 2022, Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed Rebekah Vardy’s libel claim. In a 75-page judgment, the court found that Rooney’s allegations were substantially true – essentially, “the essential sting of the libel has been shown to be true.”

The judge concluded that Vardy, working in concert with her close friend and agent (Caroline Watt), had been involved in leaking Rooney’s private posts to the press. Evidence from WhatsApp messages and witness testimony demonstrated that Ms. Watt had passed stories to The Sun, and that “Ms Vardy knew of and condoned this behaviour, actively engaging in it” by directing her agent to Rooney’s private Instagram content.

The judgment listed numerous leaked incidents (dubbed the “Marriage,” “Gender Selection,” “Flooded Basement” posts, etc.), finding Vardy was aware of or involved in each leak. In the judge’s words, “Ms Vardy was party to the disclosure” of private information, and while Ms. Watt likely sent the material to journalists, Vardy “knew of and condoned” it.

Because the truth defence succeeded, Rooney had a complete defence to libel. The judge did briefly analyse Rooney’s alternative public interest defence, acknowledging the post touched on an “undesirable practice” of leaking private lives of celebrities. Rooney was found to have genuinely believed exposing the leaker was in the public interest, especially after issuing private warnings.

However, the judge ruled Rooney’s belief was not reasonable under the Defamation Act test, because she had not given Vardy a chance to respond before publicly accusing her. In particular, “it was not reasonable to believe that it was in the public interest to publish the Reveal Post without taking any steps to put the allegation to Ms Vardy and give her an opportunity to respond”, the judgment noted. This meant the public interest defence failed on the reasonableness requirement – but ultimately this did not matter, since the finding of truth meant the claim was defeated in any event.

In conclusion, Justice Steyn stated plainly: “For the reasons I have given, the claim is dismissed.” Vardy lost the case, and Rooney was victorious in her defence. The outcome was a resounding vindication for Rooney’s famous “Wagatha Christie” sting operation. Following the judgment, the court ordered Vardy to pay Rooney’s legal costs (with an initial estimate that Vardy would pay 90% of Rooney’s costs on an indemnity basis, reflecting the judge’s disapproval of certain aspects of Vardy’s conduct during the case).

Costs and 2025 Appeal

The litigation did not entirely end with the 2022 trial judgment. The focus shifted to the enormous legal costs generated by the case – reportedly running into millions of pounds – and how those should be assessed. In particular, a dispute arose over whether Rooney’s side had conducted the litigation in a way that should reduce the costs recoverable from Vardy. This led to a separate hearing in October 2024 before Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker on preliminary cost issues, and eventually an appeal by Vardy.

Allegation of Misconduct in Costs:

Vardy argued that Rooney’s lawyers had acted improperly or unreasonably in the course of cost budgeting earlier in the case, warranting a sanction under CPR 44.11 (a rule allowing courts to penalise litigation misconduct by disallowing costs).

The specific complaint was that Rooney’s legal team gave a misleading impression about how high Vardy’s legal expenses were, by failing to clarify that Rooney’s own cost budget figures were artificially low.

During a pre-trial costs management hearing in 2021 before Master Eastman, each side had filed Precedent H cost budgets. Rooney’s solicitors had submitted incurred cost figures that were lower than the actual costs incurred, on the basis that only “reasonable and proportionate” costs (the standard basis) would count – effectively showing a discounted number.

Vardy’s side, by contrast, listed their full actual costs incurred to date, which appeared much higher.

Vardy contended that Rooney’s lawyers then “made trenchant criticisms” of how large Vardy’s costs were, implying Vardy was spending vastly more, without revealing that Rooney’s own budget figure did not include all her real costs. In essence, Vardy accused Rooney’s team of an ambush: comparing “apples to oranges” and not being transparent, thereby misleading the court into viewing Vardy as the disproportionately costly litigant.

Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker, however, declined to find any misconduct. He accepted that Rooney’s solicitors might deserve criticism for a “lack of transparency” in not making their budgeting basis clear, but he was not persuaded that this crossed into improper or unreasonable conduct under CPR 44.11. Vardy appealed that decision to the High Court (King’s Bench Division).

High Court Appeal Judgment (Cavanagh J, April 2025):

Mr Justice Cavanagh heard Vardy’s appeal on this costs issue. The issue on appeal was framed as “whether the Judge was wrong to decline to find that the Defendant or her solicitors had conducted themselves improperly or unreasonably for the purposes of CPR 44.11(1)(b)”. After examining the history and the legal principles, the High Court dismissed Vardy’s appeal.

Justice Cavanagh agreed that Rooney’s legal team could justly be “entitled to criticism” for an error of judgment – they should have been clearer that their Precedent H budget omitted some actual costs. It “would have been better for the Defendant’s legal advisers to have made clear… that their Precedent H figures did not represent the actual incurred costs”, the judge observed. Nonetheless, this shortcoming did not amount to misconduct under the strict CPR 44.11 standard.

The judge cited authority that “mistake or error of judgment or negligence, without more, will be insufficient to amount to ‘unreasonable or improper’ conduct.” In Cavanagh J’s view, the cost judge was “fully entitled to decide… that the lack of transparency… did not cross the line” into sanctionable misconduct. There was no proof of a deliberate attempt to mislead; rather, “what happened was a mistake, and an error of judgment, but was not misconduct for the purposes of CPR 44.11.”

He noted that if there had been clear evidence Rooney’s solicitors deliberately misled the court or acted in bad faith, it would be a different matter – but “that is not what happened in the present case.” The High Court therefore refused to penalise Rooney’s side by reducing their recoverable costs. In the Conclusion of the 2025 judgment, the court unequivocally stated: “For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.”

This meant Vardy remained liable to pay Rooney’s costs as ordered, with no reduction for the alleged misconduct. The outcome underscored how high the bar is for invoking CPR 44.11; mere litigation tactics or budgeting choices, absent egregious misconduct, will not easily strip a prevailing party of their costs.

Implications

Vardy v Rooney has significant implications both legally and publicly. On the legal front, it illustrates several important points in modern defamation law:

• The threshold for truth defence: Even in a case built on circumstantial evidence (much of the direct evidence, such as WhatsApp chats, had to be pieced together since key data was lost or destroyed), the court was willing to draw inferences that satisfied the truth defence. The judgment sends a message that a carefully executed “sting” and thorough forensic presentation of evidence can prove the truth of an allegation, even if the accused party denies it. It also shows the court will consider the “essential sting” of a defamatory meaning – here, that Vardy was leaking stories – and if that core allegation is shown to be true in substance, the defence will succeed.
• Public interest defence in the social media era: The case applied the relatively new public interest defence to a scenario of personal social media exposé. The judgment confirmed that exposing gossip-leaks can be in the public interest, but it also emphasised the importance of responsible journalism standards even for social media posts. Rooney’s failure to give Vardy a chance to comment or deny the allegation beforehand was deemed unreasonable. This highlights that individuals who “publish” accusations on social platforms might be held to similar expectations as journalists when claiming a public interest justification.
• Costs and conduct: The enormous legal costs (reports suggest the total bill ran into the millions) and the 2025 costs appeal highlight the financial risks of libel litigation. The fact that Vardy was ordered to pay 90% of Rooney’s costs on an indemnity basis reflects the court’s disapproval of aspects of Vardy’s conduct (such as evidence destruction or perhaps bringing a case found to be baseless). The failed CPR 44.11 appeal further clarifies that while courts can punish litigants or lawyers for improper conduct, they will require a high threshold of bad behavior (e.g. dishonesty or abuse of process). Routine strategic decisions, even if aggressive or lacking transparency, will not usually meet the standard for cost penalties.

On a public level, this case – dubbed “Wagatha Christie” in the media – has had a cautionary effect. It starkly demonstrates the reputational and monetary stakes of social media disputes that escalate to court. The saga is a reminder that airing private grievances publicly can backfire spectacularly. Coleen Rooney emerged legally vindicated, but the case put intimate details of both women’s lives under intense scrutiny. Rebekah Vardy not only lost the libel claim, but in doing so arguably suffered worse publicity than the original post caused, and incurred massive financial liability. Future public figures may think twice about suing for defamation without compelling evidence to support their case, especially given how the truth can emerge through the disclosure process. Meanwhile, the case has become a pop-culture reference point, underlining how social media “detective work” and personal PR battles are intersecting with serious legal consequences.

Verdict

Coleen Rooney successfully defended the libel claim brought by Rebekah Vardy. The High Court’s 2022 judgment dismissed Vardy’s claim, ruling that Rooney’s allegations were substantially true. Consequently, Vardy received no damages and was ordered to pay the majority of Rooney’s legal costs. A subsequent appeal by Vardy in 2025, alleging misconduct by Rooney’s legal team in costs budgeting, was also dismissed by the High Court. This final ruling upheld the original costs order, bringing the proceedings to a definitive close.

Sources: Vardy v Rooney [2022] EWHC 2017 (QB) and Vardy v Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB)