As Rebekah Vardy loses libel battle against Coleen Rooney, fans poke fun at Jamie’s ‘lighter’ wallet

Coleen Rooney reigned victorious because the long-awaited verdict within the sensational £3million Wagatha Christie trial was introduced on Friday, with the WAG successful her libel battle against Rebekah Vardy.

And following the announcement of Coleen’s triumph at noon on Friday, Twitter was flooded with hilarious memes which poked fun at the ‘lighter’ wallet of Rebekah’s footballer husband Jamie and the way his retirement will now should be postponed because of the case’s monstrous authorized charges.

The explosive three-year battle, centered on Coleen’s claims that Rebekah leaked data to The Sun primarily based on posts from the previous’s personal Instagram account, has gripped the nation, with a packed two-week listening to at the High Court in May seeing each Rebekah, 40, and Coleen, 36, give dramatic testimony from the witness field.

Memes included a historic shot of Jamie wanting aggravated on the soccer pitch, alongside the caption: ‘Jamie Vardy when he see’s Rebekah’s legal professionals’ invoice.’

Fans additionally wrote: ‘What Jamie Vardy will appear to be by the point he can afford to cease taking part in,’ alongside a photograph of a rugged man,’ in addition to, ‘It’s… Rebekah Vardy’s checking account.’

Others quipped that Rebekah had all the time been ‘skating on skinny ice’ in reference to her stint on ITV’s Dancing On Ice, with some likening her loss to Amber Heard personal current libel trial against Johnny Depp.

Coleen right this moment laid into the £3million price of the disastrous Wagatha Christie libel introduced by Rebekah who doggedly pursued the personal objective High Court battle that has destroyed her fame and noticed her ‘successfully branded a liar’.

Mrs Vardy and her footballer husband have been left with a multi-million pound authorized invoice after a decide dominated that swathes of her proof given beneath oath had been ‘manifestly inconsistent, ‘not credible’ and was at occasions ‘evasive or implausible’. 

Mrs Rooney mentioned in an announcement that she was ‘happy’ the ruling went in her favour however that she ‘by no means believed’ the case ought to have gone to court docket ‘at such expense in occasions of hardship for therefore many individuals when the money may have been much better spent serving to others’.

She mentioned: ‘It was not a case I ever sought or wished. I by no means believed it ought to have gone to court docket at such expense in occasions of hardship for therefore many individuals when the money may have been much better spent serving to others.

‘Both earlier than and after my social media posts in October 2019, I made each effort to keep away from the necessity for such a drawn out and public court docket case. All my makes an attempt to take action had been knocked again by Mrs (Rebekah) Vardy.

‘This left me with no various however to undergo with the case to defend myself and to finish the repeated leaking of my personal data to The Sun.

‘These leaks from my personal Instagram account started in 2017. They continued for nearly two years, intruding on my privateness and that of my household. Although I bear Mrs Vardy no ill-will, right this moment’s judgment makes clear that I used to be proper in what I mentioned in my posts of October 2019.

‘Finally, I want to thank all of my authorized crew, my household, mates and everybody who supported me, together with the general public, by this troublesome and traumatic time.’

Leading media lawyer Jonathan Coad mentioned right this moment that Rebekah had been ‘successfully branded a liar’ and mentioned a self-infliected defeat in a case she had introduced herself had been ‘a catastrophe’.

The 40-year-old spouse of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy relentlessly pursued the case against her Wag rival Coleen Rooney for almost three years after being accused of leaking personal tales about Coleen and her household to The Sun newspaper.

The bombshell verdict from Court 13 of the High Court was handed down remotely on-line at midday by Mrs Justice Steyn simply over two months after the listening to in May. Vardy’s failed libel go well with has been branded essentially the most ill-advised in historical past.

The High Court has discovered that Mrs Rooney’s social media submit accusing her rival was ‘considerably true’ and that Mrs Vardy ‘knew of, condoned and was actively engaged’ in leaks to the media by her ex-agent Caroline Watt.

And in a damning evaluation of Mrs Vardy’s proof, the decide mentioned ‘important components of [Vardy’s] proof weren’t credible’ and at occasions her ‘proof was manifestly inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentary proof, evasive or implausible’. By distinction, the decide discovered that Coleen and her witnesses, together with husband Wayne, ‘gave sincere, dependable proof.’

Mrs Justice Steyn additionally dominated that lack of WhatsApp messages between Mrs Vardy and Ms Watt was ‘deliberate moderately than unintentional’ – dismissing her agent’s declare {that a} cellphone fell into the North Sea when a ship hit an enormous wave.

In her ruling, the decide mentioned it was ‘seemingly’ that Mrs Vardy’s agent at the time, Caroline Watt, ‘undertook the direct act’ of passing the knowledge to The Sun.

But she added: ‘Nonetheless, the proof … clearly reveals, in my opinion, that Mrs Vardy knew of and condoned this behaviour, actively partaking in it by directing Ms Watt to the personal Instagram account, sending her screenshots of Mrs Rooney’s posts, drawing consideration to objects of potential curiosity to the press, and answering extra queries raised by the press by way of Ms Watt.

The decide added: ‘In my judgment, the conclusions that I’ve reached as to the extent to which the claimant engaged in disclosing to The Sun data to which she solely had entry as a permitted follower of an Instagram account which she knew, and Mrs Rooney repeatedly asserted, was personal, suffice to point out the one which means is considerably true.’

For every week in May, the case captivated hundreds of thousands who had been left open-mouthed by the proof together with explosive and expletive-filled Whatsapp messages despatched by Ms Vardy in addition to Coleen’s proof about leaking false tales about her personal life to search out who was giving them to the tabloids and the way her marriage virtually fell aside after her husband Wayne was caught drink-driving with a celebration lady.

The case was nicknamed ‘Wagatha Christie’ due to the novice detective work that led to Coleen’s accusation about her rival.

Mrs Rooney, 36, had posted faux tales on Instagram to search out out who was passing her personal data to the press. Rooney mentioned she had blocked all accounts from seeing her Instagram tales, aside from the one she suspected of being the leaker.

In an October 2019 social media submit that immediately went viral, she revealed: ‘It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’

Now Rebekah and her husband, with an estimated web value between them of round £12million must discover an estimated £3million to pay each units of legal professionals engaged in a libel go well with branded essentially the most ill-advised in historical past.

Wagatha Christie judgment in full

And maybe much more expensive, after being accused time after time of mendacity in court docket by 36-year-old Coleen’s rottweiler barrister David Sherborne, the mother-of-five has emerged not solely emotionally bruised and battered, however along with her credibility equally broken.

During the seven-day case, Mr Sherborne highlighted the ‘unlucky, inconceivable collection of occasions’ provided by Rebekah’s aspect about gadgets which he claims may have contained key proof within the case.

Rebekah mentioned her WhatsApp messages had been lost as she tried to switch them to her solicitor; her husband mentioned he lost his messages when his cellular phone was hacked and her former agent Ms Watt claimed her cellphone by chance dropped into the North Sea when her boat was hit by a wave throughout a Scottish vacation.

The decide mentioned that Rebekah’s choice to not name her former agent Caroline Watt was ‘motivated to a considerable diploma by concern for her good friend’s welfare’, however added: ‘Nonetheless, the Court thought-about that the first cause Ms Watt was so reluctant to provide proof, and has suffered adversely from the stress to take action, was that she knew that to a big extent the proof she was because of give (however then withdrew) was unfaithful.

‘And the Court inferred that the Claimant’s choice to not name Ms Watt was partially motivated by an evaluation that her proof, when examined in cross-examination, would have been more likely to have undermined the Claimant’s case.’

In conclusion the decide mentioned: ‘The Court discovered that the Claimant, along with Ms Watt, was get together to the disclosure to The Sun of the Marriage, Birthday, Halloween, Pyjamas, Car Crash, Gender Selection, Babysitting and Flooded Basement Posts.

‘The Court thought-about it seemingly that Ms Watt undertook the direct act, in relation to every submit, of passing the knowledge to a journalist at The Sun, however discovered that the Claimant knew of, condoned and was actively engaged on this course of.’

She added: ‘The Court drew the inference that extra data from the Defendant’s Private Instagram Account was more likely to have been handed to The Sun by the Claimant and Ms Watt, performing collectively.’

The decide mentioned she discovered that the case must be dismissed on the idea that Coleen ‘had succeeded in proving that the one which means [of her Wagatha post] was considerably true.’

But Coleen’s various defence – that her submit was within the public curiosity – was rejected, largely as a result of Rebekah was given no alternative to reply to the allegation earlier than it was printed.

The decide agreed with Coleen’s lawyer’s declare that the ‘collection of inconceivable, unlucky occasions which befell a number of piece of doubtless key proof within the case had been intentionally destroyed by Rebekah and her agent Caroline Watt. Rebekah mentioned she by chance deleted messages from her cell phone whereas attempting to export them to her legal professionals, whereas Ms Watt claimed to have by chance dropped her cell phone into the North Sea whereas ‘filming the shoreline from a ship’.

The decide mentioned: ‘The Court decided that the lack of each the Claimant’s and Ms Watt’s copies of their unique WhatsApp dialog was deliberate moderately than unintentional.

‘The Court drew the inference that the lacking knowledge would have supported the Defendant’s fact defence in relation to the Gender Selection and Flooded Basement Posts, and extra broadly.’

At the top of the 75-page judgement, Mrs Justice Steyn concluded: ‘For the explanations that I’ve given, the declare is dismissed.’

David Sherborne alleged Rebekah had purposefully chosen to not export probably damaging proof within the WhatsApp account, then disposed of the laptop computer used to make a back-up. He additionally claimed Rebekah had manually deleted massive numbers of messages to and from her agent.

Asked what occurred to 9 months of lacking WhatsApp chats between her and Ms Watts, Rebekah appeared unclear. She mentioned she had ‘probably switched telephones’ throughout the interval and lost the WhatsApp messages within the course of however ‘I can neither verify or deny that’.

Mr Sherborne alleged in actuality it was a deliberate try to destroy proof: ‘You deleted the entire messages between you and Caroline Watt.’

On different events, Rebekah modified her statements after proof emerged in a collection of WhatApp messages between her and Caroline Watt which contradicted her earlier accounts.

Only days earlier than the case went to trial, Rebekah made her most dramatic shift in her proof, stating that she believed it could nicely have been Miss Watts who leaked data to the press.

Mr Sherborne mentioned this was a ‘radical change’, as Rebekah had beforehand mentioned ‘Caroline Watt is just not the supply’.

But throwing her former agent and good friend ‘beneath a bus’, because the lawyer put it might not be sufficient for Rebekah to flee her personal function within the affair.

Rebekah claimed that Coleen had ‘weaponised her fanbase’ when, in 2019, she made the unique accusation that Rebekah had leaked tales to the media.

The court docket heard feedback Rebekah made in a 2019 interview following the unique accusation: ‘Arguing with Coleen is like arguing with a pigeon. You can inform it that you’re proper and it’s fallacious but it surely’s nonetheless going to shit in your hair.’

During one alternate, Rebekah admitted realizing that her agent was discussing personal details about Coleen with Sun journalist Andy Halls – but insisted it was materials the newspaper already knew and subsequently not a recent leak.

Mr Sherborne requested her: ‘You did not object at any stage to the truth that Ms Watt was plainly passing on data from Mrs Rooney’s personal Instagram account to Andy Halls?’

Rebekah replied: ‘I did not assume she was passing on any new data.’

Mr Sherborne mentioned: ‘Take the phrase ‘new’ out of it. Did you, or did you not, know that Ms Watt was passing on data from Mrs Rooney’s personal account?’

Rebekah replied: ‘She was speaking to Mr Halls about data that was already being mentioned.’

In one WhatsApp alternate learn to the court docket, Ms Watts mentioned a reporter at the Sun wished to know whether or not Rooney had positively crashed her automotive, a element that allegedly got here from the personal Instagram account. Vardy replied with the phrases: ‘Haha she deffo did.’

Towards the top of the third day in court docket, Rebekah slumped ahead along with her head in her palms throughout cross-examination. The court docket took common breaks as she turned tearful.

When Vardy started one answer by saying ‘if I’m sincere’, the barrister shot again: ‘I’d hope you are sincere since you’re sitting in a witness field.’

Rebekah was seen in tears and left early along with her husband Jamie with Mrs Rooney’s barrister claiming her case ‘disintegrated’ throughout the week-long trial.

Mrs Rooney was mentioned to be ‘supremely assured’ forward of the decision right this moment and has reportedly advised mates: ‘Whatever the decide decides, I’ve already received’. The supply added: ‘She believes the proof introduced earlier than the court docket has proved her case that Becky knew about leaks to the Press — and accepted them.’

Media lawyer Mark Stephens predicted: ‘If the sting of the libel is true, in that Rebekah Vardy is a ordinary leaker, then Coleen Rooney in all probability wins. Even if Rebekah does win, the measure of her damages will likely be very low. It may very well be as little as £1. If she is awarded that degree of damages, she’s going to find yourself paying the opposite aspect’s authorized prices.’

He added: ‘In the court docket of public opinion Rebekah Vardy did herself a disservice along with her proof. The solely winners listed below are the legal professionals, who’re going to be placing up Vardy or Rooney extensions of their properties.’

The two girls have been locked in a bitter authorized dispute since 2019 after Mrs Rooney, spouse of former England captain Wayne, took to social media to accuse her fellow WAG Mrs Vardy of leaking tales to the press.

The packed hearings at the High Court in May noticed each Rebekah, 40, and Coleen, 36, give dramatic testimony from the witness field within the case which centred on Coleen’s claims that her rival had leaked data to the Sun primarily based on posts from her personal Instagram account.

Coleen was additionally mentioned to be ‘supremely assured’ of successful the case.

A good friend reportedly mentioned: ‘She believes the proof introduced earlier than the court docket has proved her case that Becky knew about leaks to the Press — and accepted them.’

In most circumstances, the decision can be revealed to the events prematurely of the handing down of the decision.

But authorized sources have reportedly mentioned: ‘It’s completely at the decide’s discretion however permits these concerned to contemplate their authorized position, particularly in a high-profile case like this. On this event that has been completely denied — they usually will not know the consequence till the morning.’

The two girls have been locked in a bitter authorized dispute since 2019 after Mrs Rooney, spouse of former England captain Wayne, took to social media to accuse her fellow WAG Mrs Vardy of leaking tales to the press.

In a now notorious ‘reveal’ submit that went viral on social media, Mrs Rooney wrote: ‘It’s……….. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’

Mrs Vardy, spouse of Leicester City and England participant Jamie, hit again at the accusation. The mom of 5 strenuously denied having something to do with tales being leaked to The Sun newspaper and took her former good friend to court docket, suing her for libel.

In May, the pair confronted one another over seven days within the High Court the place Mrs Justice Steyn heard particulars of Mrs Rooney’s ‘sting’ operation, telephones going lacking within the North Sea, and Mrs Vardy evaluating Peter Andre’s personal components to a chipolata.

The eventful and extremely publicised trial price as much as £3million in legal professionals’ charges, which means right this moment’s loser will decide up an eye-watering authorized invoice.

Accompanied to court docket day by day by husband Wayne, Mrs Rooney advised the trial that she planted a collection of faux tales on her Instagram account after turning into suspicious that somebody was leaking particulars of her personal life to the tabloids.

The mom of 4 advised the court docket that her WAG rival ‘monitored and stalked’ her personal Instagram profile alongside along with her former agent Caroline Watt.

The court docket was learn a string of textual content messages between the pair, together with Mrs Vardy telling Mrs Watt she would ‘love’ to leak tales about Mrs Rooney to the press.

Mrs Rooney’s barrister David Sherborne argued that Mrs Vardy had a ‘ordinary and established apply’ of leaking data by Mrs Watt, who needed to pull out of being a witness as she was deemed too unwell to provide proof.

On the ultimate day of the trial, Mr Sherbourne mentioned Mrs Vardy’s proof in court docket was ‘extremely unreliable’ and her accuracy ‘merely can’t be trusted’ as she had repeatedly modified her model of occasions.

A lighter second got here when Mr Sherborne quipped that the cellphone belonging to Mrs Watt, from which messages had been lost after she claimed it fell into the North Sea, lay ‘in Davy Jones’ Locker’.

The court docket erupted with laughter when Mrs Vardy responded: ‘I’m sorry, I do not know who Davy Jones is.’

Mrs Vardy, decked out in designer fits and six-inch stilettos, remained defiant on the stand and denied having something to do with the leaks.

Her legal professionals argued that she suffered ‘very severe hurt to her fame’ on account of Mrs Rooney’s submit and that the incident was ‘extraordinarily upsetting’ for her and her household.

Mrs Vardy advised of how she feared shedding her unborn child at the time of the social media storm because it was inflicting her such stress and anxiousness.

Mrs Vardy, who was seven months’ pregnant at the time, mentioned she was admitted to hospital thrice within the closing two months of her being pregnant and was left feeling suicidal.

Over seven days in courtroom quantity 13 at the Royal Courts of Justice, the 2 footballers’ wives every gave proof as revelations from the case made each day headlines throughout the British press.

During the trial, Mrs Rooney’s barrister David Sherborne argued that Mrs Vardy had a ‘ordinary and established apply’ of leaking details about these she knew – by her good friend and former agent Caroline Watt – to The Sun newspaper.

Discussing Mrs Rooney’s viral ‘reveal’ submit, her barrister added: ‘It is what she believed at the time… and it’s what she believes much more so now that we have now obtained to the top of the case.’

However, Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Mrs Vardy, mentioned Mrs Rooney had ‘failed to provide any proof’ that Mrs Vardy had ‘frequently and steadily abused her standing as a trusted follower’ of her personal Instagram account by passing on data from it to The Sun.

Mr Tomlinson mentioned the libel battle was a ‘quite simple case’ when ‘one clears away the conspiracy theories’.

He added: ‘Mrs Vardy’s case is and all the time has been that she didn’t leak the knowledge nor did she authorise anybody else to leak.

‘She doesn’t know to at the present time what occurred. She doesn’t know the place this data got here from.’

The barrister added that Mrs Vardy suffered ‘very severe hurt to her fame’ on account of Mrs Rooney’s submit.