The high-profile libel battle between footballers’ wives Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy, dubbed the ‘Wagatha Christie’ saga, has returned to the courtroom. This time, the dispute is over the issue of Rooney’s legal bill, which amounts to nearly £2 million.

The “Wagatha Christie” trial, which concluded in 2022, saw Vardy lose her claim against Rooney after a dramatic trial in the High Court. However, two years on, the legal wrangling continues as Vardy now challenges the costs Rooney is seeking to recover.

The Origins of the ‘Wagatha Christie’ Saga

The infamous legal drama began when Rooney, wife of football star Wayne Rooney, accused Rebekah Vardy, married to Jamie Vardy, of leaking stories about her to the tabloid press. Rooney conducted a sting operation, posting false stories on her private Instagram account and gradually narrowing down the potential leaker to Vardy’s account.

The stories, which included false claims about gender selection and basement flooding, made their way into The Sun newspaper. Rooney publicly revealed her findings, accusing Vardy of being behind the leaks. This led to the libel suit in which Vardy claimed her reputation had been unfairly damaged by Rooney’s accusations.

The case, which captivated the media and public alike, ultimately ended in a victory for Rooney. Justice Steyn ruled that Rooney’s post was “substantially true,” and ordered Vardy to pay 90% of Mrs Rooney’s legal fees on an indemnity basis. This decision came after a lengthy trial that saw Vardy face accusations of evidence destruction and dishonesty, including claims that her agent, Caroline Watt, had deliberately deleted messages related to the case. 

Wagatha Christie Costs and Vardy’s Challenge to the Legal Bill

Despite losing the libel case, Vardy has returned to court, challenging the almost £2 million in legal costs Rooney is now seeking. According to court documents, Rooney’s total legal bill amounts to £1,833,906.89. Vardy contends that a significant portion of this amount is unjustified. In particular, she highlights over £120,000 in charges that she argues Rooney is not entitled to claim under the costs order issued by the court.

Jamie Carpenter KC, representing Vardy, has raised concerns about the extensive time spent by Rooney’s legal team on the case, comparing it to “one person working on the file for 2.4 hours a day, every day, including weekends and bank holidays, from inception to conclusion.” It was further noted that the bill of costs was three times the amount of the agreed costs budget.

Carpenter also criticised what he described as excessive luxury expenses, pointing out that the legal partner in charge of the case stayed at the high-end Nobu Hotel, incurring substantial dinner and minibar charges, while lower-ranking fee-earners had to settle for more modest accommodations at the West End DoubleTree.

Carpenter has suggested that Rooney’s bill was drawn up with a “kitchen sink” approach, including every possible item, no matter how small or unrelated to the core of the case.

He claimed that the bill, which reportedly took 172 hours to draft, lacked the necessary care and attention, and questioned whether all of the claimed expenses were reasonable and proportionate.

Rooney’s Defence

Rooney, however, maintains that the high legal costs were a direct result of Vardy’s own conduct during the litigation. Robin Dunne, representing Rooney, has argued that Vardy’s behaviour throughout the case—destroying evidence, withholding key documents, and making untruthful statements—made the proceedings far more complex and expensive than they otherwise would have been.

Dunne noted that it was Vardy who chose to launch the libel claim, despite knowing that Rooney’s accusations were, in fact, true. According to Dunne, Vardy’s refusal to engage in pre-trial discussions or consider settlement options meant that Rooney’s legal team had no choice but to incur substantial costs in preparing for and defending the case.

The court had previously ordered that Vardy should pay costs on an indemnity basis, a more punitive level of costs meant to reflect the severity of her conduct during the litigation.

Rooney’s legal team has insisted that their fees are justified given the high stakes of the case, the complexity of the legal issues involved, and Vardy’s persistent dishonesty. They also pointed out that Vardy had the opportunity to avoid these costs entirely by choosing not to pursue the libel claim in the first place.

Senior Costs Judge to Rule on Wagatha Christie Costs Dispute

The issue of the Wagatha Christie Costs is now before Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker, who will conduct a detailed assessment of the claimed expenses. This process involves scrutinising each individual charge to determine whether it is reasonable and in line with the court’s previous orders.

Vardy’s challenge raises significant questions about the proportionality of legal costs in high-profile cases, particularly those involving wealthy individuals who may have the resources to pursue lengthy litigation.

Whilst a line-by-line assessment of the costs is yet to be undertaken, and will be listed on a later date, Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker has already resolved several preliminary issues as follows:

1. Though it was accepted that Rooney’s Solicitors had deliberately underestimated their costs within the Costs Budget, this did not amount to misconduct, on the basis that the figures presented were those considered to be “reasonable and proportionate”;

2. It was reasonable for Rooney to instruct London Solicitors, given the specialism of defamation law, and the complexity/high-publicity aspects of this case;

The detailed assessment remains ongoing at the time of writing, and is to be listed for a line-by-line assessment of costs, but Senior Costs Judge Gordon Saker did pass interesting comments that the Statement of Truth attached to Costs Budgets may need to be reconsidered.

Given multiple recent decisions whereby Claimants have been criticised for “over-egging” their Costs Budgets, it doesn’t sit right that opposing parties can purposefully limit the costs they disclose in their own Costs Budget in order to make the other side’s costs appear unreasonable and disproportionate.  This seems like gamesmanship which would render costs budgeting unfit for purpose if honest figures are not disclosed.

How can ARC Costs Assist?

ARC Costs are an experienced and independent team of specialised Costs Draftsmen and Costs Lawyers. We assist both paying and receiving parties in resolving costs disputes, and are adept at preparing Costs Budgets and Bill of Costs for receiving parties, as well as providing legal costs negotiations services and preparing Points of Reply.

For paying parties, we are adept at preparing Points of Dispute, and ensuring that a proportionate level of costs is recovered. Proportionality is a subjective issue, and it is therefore important you have the right legal costs representative on your side during detailed assessment to ensure you make the most persuasive submissions on the issue.  

Should you require any assistance or free initial advice, please call us on 01204 397302, or email one of our costs experts direct on info@arccosts.co.uk.

Request Your Free Quotation