Court Rules No Misconduct by Coleen Rooney’s Legal Team in Vardy Case
3 min read
Barristers for Mrs Rooney and Mrs Vardy have returned to the High Court in a dispute over legal costs of the libel battle in 2022. Picture: Alamy
A judge has ruled that Coleen Rooney’s legal team did not engage in misconduct during the 2022 libel trial against Rebekah Vardy, who had accused Rooney of deliberately understating her legal costs. The high-profile case, commonly referred to as the “Wagatha Christie” trial, concluded with Vardy losing the case and being ordered to pay 90% of Rooney’s legal expenses.
Originally estimated at £540,000, Rooney’s legal costs have now ballooned to £1.8 million. The ongoing dispute over these costs brought both parties back to the High Court, where senior costs judge Andrew Gordon-Saker delivered his ruling. He stated, “on balance and, I have to say, only just,” that Rooney’s legal team had not committed any wrongdoing. As a result, he deemed it “not an appropriate case” to reduce the amount Vardy should pay.
While Judge Gordon-Saker noted a lack of transparency from Rooney’s legal team, he concluded that it did not rise to the level of misconduct. Vardy’s barrister, Jamie Carpenter KC, had previously claimed in court documents that Rooney misled both Vardy and the court regarding the legal costs incurred, describing this as serious misconduct. He argued that Rooney had intentionally understated costs to create a disparity that could be used to challenge Vardy’s expenses.
Despite these assertions, Judge Gordon-Saker found no merit in Vardy’s request to reduce her financial liability. The court was informed that Rooney’s legal fees were initially reported in October 2022 at £1,667,860 but had since risen to £1,833,907. Carpenter highlighted that this figure was significantly above the agreed-upon budget of £540,779, calling it “a remarkable increase.”
In defense of the costs, Robin Dunne, representing Rooney, dismissed Vardy’s claims as “misconceived,” explaining that the budget was never meant to be a precise or binding estimate of legal costs. Dunne emphasized that Vardy’s frustrations stemmed from her own conduct during the litigation, which he claimed rendered the budgets irrelevant. He stated, “Had Mrs. Vardy conducted this matter in a reasonable fashion, Mrs. Rooney would be confined to her budget.”
The current hearing, which began this week, is focused on key principles before proceeding to a detailed assessment of costs at a later date. Neither Vardy nor Rooney was present in court on Tuesday.
Dunne explained that the lawyer initially booked a modest hotel but was forced to transfer to Nobu due to inadequate facilities, securing a reduced rate. While a standard room at Nobu typically costs £600, Dunne stated Rooney’s team paid £295, comparable to a Premier Inn rate. He clarified that the reported food and minibar expenses amounted to just £7 for two bottles of water, refuting claims of extravagant dining.
Judge Gordon-Saker also addressed Vardy’s argument that it was unreasonable for Rooney to hire the London-based law firm Stewarts, suggesting she should have opted for a local firm in the north-west of England. The judge countered this by stating the case’s high-profile nature and the significant press coverage it attracted warranted the choice of a specialized firm in central London.
In his ruling, Judge Gordon-Saker further rejected Vardy’s contention that consulting barrister David Sherborne 30 times at nearly £500,000 was excessive. He noted that Vardy’s actions, particularly her destruction of evidence, complicated the case and justified higher rates for experienced lawyers. However, he also suggested that less experienced lawyers should have charged lower hourly rates.
As the legal battle continues, the court’s decisions highlight the complexities surrounding costs in high-stakes defamation cases, particularly when reputations are on the line.
About The Author
