• Accident & Medical Claims
    • Accident Claims
    • Road Traffic Accidents
    • Medical Negligence
    • Asbestos Claims
    • Serious Injuries
    • Funding Your Personal Injury Claim
  • Divorce & Children
    • Divorce & Separation
    • Children Law
    • Prenuptial & Postnuptial Agreements
    • Living Together
    • Domestic Violence
    • Same Sex Families
  • Wealth Management
    • Pensions
    • Financial Advice
    • Tax
    • Life Insurance
    • Residential Care Home Planning
    • Trusts
  • Wills & Inheritance
    • Wills
    • Dealing with a Death
    • Inheritance Disputes
    • Powers of Attorney
    • Court of Protection
    • Notary Services
  • Business Services
    • Business Disputes
    • Business Agreements & Contracts
    • Debt Recovery
    • Corporate Services
    • Insolvency Advice
    • Intellectual Property
  • Employment & HR
    • Employer Legal Advice – Managing Your Workforce
    • Employee Rights
  • Property Services
    • House Sales & Purchases
    • Commercial Property
    • Property Disputes
    • Landlord & Tenant
    • Planning Law
    • Construction & Engineering
  • Sectors
    • Education Law
    • Academy Conversion Services
    • Services for Academies
    • Education Training
    • Charities
  • About Us
    • Our People
    • Find Us
    • About
    • Careers at Nelsons
    • News
    • Events
    • Blogs
    • Fusion Legal
  • Pay Online
  • Our People
  • Find Us
  • About
  • Careers at Nelsons
  • News
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Fusion Legal
  • Pay Online
logo
0800 024 1976 Email us
logo
For advice and support 0800 024 1976
Email us
  • Accident & Medical Claims

    Accident Claims icon arrow

    Compensation for your injuries

    Asbestos Claims icon arrow

    Asbestos exposure and related diseases

    Road Traffic Accidents icon arrow

    Car, bike, bus and lorry accidents

    Medical Negligence icon arrow

    Advice when you need it most

    Abuse Claims icon arrow

    Abuse compensation claims

    Serious Injuries icon arrow

    Head, brain and spinal injury claims

  • Divorce & Children

    Divorce & Separation icon arrow

    Resolving your relationship issues

    Children Law icon arrow

    Child arrangements and adoption

    Prenuptial & Postnuptial Agreements icon arrow

    Drafting and reviewing marital agreements

    Family Mediation icon arrow

    Resolving separation disputes

    Living Together icon arrow

    Legal protection for living together

    Domestic Violence icon arrow

    Protecting you from abuse

  • Wills & Inheritance

    Wills icon arrow

    Making or changing a Will

    Dealing with a Death icon arrow

    Probate and inheritance services

    Inheritance Disputes icon arrow

    Challenging or disputing a Will

    Powers of Attorney icon arrow

    Managing your financial and legal affairs

    Court of Protection icon arrow

    Making decisions for your loved ones

    Notary Services icon arrow

    Witnessing your documents

  • Wealth Management

    Independent Financial Advisers icon arrow

    Investment management planning and strategies

    Pensions icon arrow

    Corporate and personal pension planning

    Cash Flow Modelling icon arrow

    Strategies to calculate your future income

    Tax icon arrow

    Personal tax planning

    Residential Care Home Planning icon arrow

    Planning ahead for your future

    Trusts icon arrow

    Creation and administration

  • Business Services

    Business Disputes icon arrow

    Resolving commercial and business conflicts

    Business Agreements & Contracts icon arrow

    Commercial agreements for your business

    Debt Recovery icon arrow

    Collecting money owed to your business

    Corporate Services icon arrow

    Company law, banking and finance

    Professional Negligence icon arrow

    Compensation for negligent advice

    Restructuring & Insolvency icon arrow

    Corporate and personal, bankruptcy and liquidations

    Intellectual Property icon arrow

    Agreements, trade marks and disputes

  • Employment & HR

    Managing Your Workforce icon arrow

    Managing and supporting your workforce

    Employee Rights icon arrow

    Your rights in the workplace

  • Property Services

    House Sales & Purchases icon arrow

    Get an instant online quote

    Commercial Property icon arrow

    Real estate acquisitions, leases and disposals

    Property Disputes icon arrow

    Resolving property and land issues

    Landlord & Tenant icon arrow

    Services for landlords and commercial tenants

    Planning Law icon arrow

    Planning applications and appeals

  • Sectors

    Construction & Engineering icon arrow

    Contracts and alternative dispute resolution

    Education Law icon arrow

    Legal services to the Education sector

    Charities icon arrow

    Legal support for charities

    Dentists & Dental Practices icon arrow

    Specialist advice for dentists and dental practices

    Manufacturing icon arrow

    Specialist legal support and advice for manufacturers

    Family Businesses icon arrow

    Specialist advice for your family business

  • Home
  • Blogs
  • Blogs
  • Individuals
  • Conclusion To The “Wagatha Christie” Case

Conclusion To The “Wagatha Christie” Case

Posted on August 4, 2022 at 11:22 am.

Written by Kevin Modiri

This article is for information only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. Please consult one of our qualified lawyers or financial advisers for advice tailored to your specific position.

In previous blogs (see links at the bottom of this article), we have followed the progress of the much publicised defamation case brought by Rebekah Vardy against Coleen Rooney.

This long-running and bitterly fought case has finally come to an end. The final hearing was to determine whether the defences run by Coleen Rooney should be successful. The defences pursued were:

  1. That the statements made were substantially true; and
  2. That the disclosures made in the statements were in the public interest.

At a previous hearing, the Court found that the single meaning of the comments made by Coleen Rooney about Rebekah Vardy was as follows:

“Over a period of years, Ms Vardy had regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower of Ms Rooney’s personal Instagram account by secretly informing The Sun newspaper of Ms Rooney’s private posts and stories, thereby making public without Ms Rooney’s permission a great deal of information about Ms Rooney, her friends, and family which she did not want made public.”

Were the statements made by Coleen Rooney about Rebekah Vardy substantially true?

In determining whether a comment is substantially true ‘the defendant … has to establish the ‘essential’ or ‘substantial’ truth of the sting of the libel. To prove the truth of some lesser defamatory meaning does not provide a complete defence’ (a quote from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Chase v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2003]). This is qualified by the judgment in Turcu v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2005], which states:

“(iii) In deciding whether any given defamatory imputation is substantially true, the Court will have well in mind the requirement to allow for exaggeration, at the margins, and have regard in that context also to proportionality. Having regard to its overall gravity and the relative significance of any elements of inaccuracy or exaggeration, has the substantial sting been proved? It is no part of the Court’s function to penalise a defendant for sloppy journalism – still less for tastelessness of style…”

Were the statements made in the public interest?

In respect of the public interest defence, Coleen Rooney had to establish the following (as set out in Banks v Cadwalladr [2022]):

“i) Was the statement complained of on a matter of public interest, or did it form part of such a statement?

  1. ii) If so, did the defendant believe that publishing the statement complained of was in the public interest?

iii) If so, was that belief reasonable?”

Coleen Rooney v Rebekah Vardy Judgment

Once Mrs Justice Steyn had heard the evidence from all parties, she set out in her judgment her view on the credibility of the evidence of the parties. It is fair to say that she did not find Rebekah Vardy particularly credible. On this point, Mrs Justice Steyn stated:

“41. Although significant parts of Ms Vardy’s evidence were not credible, my assessment is that she is genuinely offended by the accusation made against her by Ms 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. Ms 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.”

Whereas, this can be contrasted by Mrs Justice Steyn’s comments on Coleen Rooney’s credibility. In this regard, she stated:

“50. In my judgment, Ms Rooney was an honest and reliable witness. She sought to answer the questions she was asked without any evasion, and without conveying any sense that she was giving pre-prepared answers. Her evidence was consistent with the contemporaneous evidence and with the evidence given by her witnesses. When she was challenged, for example on whether there were followers of the Private Instagram Account who were not trusted friends, her evidence was clear and compelling.”

Rebekah Vardy’s case was hindered, in large part, by two issues:

  1. The conspicuous absence of Ms Watts, who Rebekah Vardy alleged had access to her Instagram account; and
  2. The acceptance by Rebekah Vardy that she had intended to leak the information about Danny Drinkwater’s drunk driving arrest.

On the first point, the Judge stated:

“…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.

  1. In my view, the claimant’s decision not to seek to call Ms Watt, against her will, was motivated, to a substantial degree, by concern for her friend’s welfare. But in the circumstances, I also draw the inference that Ms Vardy chose not to call Ms Watt because she knew that when tested in cross-examination her evidence would be shown to be untrue, and that it would have been highly likely to have undermined the claimant’s case that she had no involvement in disclosing information from the Private Instagram Account.”

On the second point, the Judge stated:

“Ms Vardy acknowledged that she intended to leak to The Sun information that Mr Drinkwater had been arrested…This exchange does not concern information about Ms Rooney or from her Private Instagram Account. Nonetheless, it is evidence of Ms Vardy’s willingness to provide information to the press about others within her circle which they would undoubtedly have preferred not to be disclosed. And it illuminates the way in which Ms Vardy and Ms Watt worked collaboratively.”

In finding, for Coleen Rooney and against Rebekah Vardy, Mrs Justice Steyn stated:

“In my judgment, the conclusions that I have reached as to the extent to which the claimant engaged in disclosing to The Sun information to which she only had access as a permitted follower of an Instagram account which she knew, and Ms Rooney repeatedly asserted, was private, suffice to show that the single meaning…is substantially true. The information disclosed was not deeply confidential, and it can fairly be described as trivial, but it does not need to be confidential or important to meet the sting of the libel. It was information derived from private posts that Ms Rooney did not want made public. The Pyjamas Post, for example, was a photograph that Ms Rooney may well have been content to share publicly at a different point in time, but the timing of its disclosure revealed very personal information that she had chosen not to make public. I recognise, of course, that it can be said that the Gender Selection and Flooded Basement Posts were fabricated stories that Ms Rooney was keen to see published precisely because she wanted to catch the person responsible for leaking her information. This does not detract from the conclusion that the essential sting of the libel has been shown to be true.”

In dismissing the public interest defence, the Judge stated:

“In circumstances where the major focus of the trial was on the truth defence, and given my finding in relation to that defence is dispositive of the case, I will express my decision in respect of the public interest defence very briefly. Although Ms Rooney’s interest was essentially personal, on balance, I accept that the Reveal Post was on a matter of public interest, namely the undesirable practice of information (in the nature of mere gossip) about celebrities’ private lives being disclosed to the press by trusted individuals. I also accept that Ms Rooney believed, having given several warnings on her Private Instagram Account, as well as a public warning, that it was in the public interest to publish the Reveal Post…However, I do not accept that the belief was reasonable in all the circumstances. 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. It is no answer to that point that Ms Rooney anticipated that Ms Vardy would deny the allegation.”

Comment

This judgment demonstrates in a dramatic fashion the effect a Judge’s view on the credibility of witnesses can have on the outcome of a defamation case. The next step is for the Court to determine the costs of the proceedings.

How can we helpRooney Vardy Case Concluded

Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team.

If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.

Contact us

Previous blogs

  • “Wagatha Christie” – A Premier League Case Of Defamation 
  • Wagatha Christie Continue…But Only In Part
  • Use Of Disclosed Documents For Another Purpose & Addition Of Additional Party To Proceedings Rooney V Vardy 
  • A Costly Exercise 
Categories
  • Accident & Medical Negligence Claims
  • Business
  • Charity
  • Education
  • Employment
  • Family
  • Individuals
  • Property
  • Wealth Management
  • Wills & Inheritance
Recent Posts
  • A Wedding Law Shake-Up – An Exciting New Proposal
  • The Role Of Solicitors’ Evidence In Challenging Wills – Two Contrasting Decisions
  • Successful Claim Under The Inheritance Act Of An Adult Child
  • Protecting Your Digital Memories
  • Hull City Council v KF – Court Of Protection Capacity To Decide On Contact With Others

Share this

Related articles

  • Individuals

Hull City Council v KF – Court Of Protection Capacity To Decide On Contact With Others

Read more

  • Individuals

What Is ‘Least Restrictive’ For A Protected Party? Court Of Protection Makes Unusual Decision Not To Move Elderly Patient Out...

Read more

  • Individuals

Protected Party’s Involvement In Urgent Deprivation Of Liberty Proceedings

Read more

See all articles

Request a document we are storing for you

Email us

Join our mailing list to keep up to date with our latest news and events

Sign up
Nelsons logo
Nelsons Derby

Sterne House
Lodge Lane
Derby
Derbyshire
DE1 3WD

01332 372 372
Nelsons Leicester

Provincial House
37 New Walk
Leicester
Leicestershire
LE1 6TU

0116 222 6666
Nelsons Nottingham

Pennine House
8 Stanford Street
Nottingham
Nottinghamshire
NG1 7BQ

0115 958 6262
  • Our People
  • Our Offices
  • About Us
  • Careers at Nelsons
  • News
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Fusion Legal
  • Terms of Use
  • Privacy Notice
  • GDPR FAQs
  • Client Records Retention Schedule
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Accessibility
  • Sitemap
  • Website by Hallam
  • Design by M&D
  • Lexcel logo
Cyber Essentials logo

Nelsons Solicitors Limited is a limited company registered in England and Wales (Reg No: 07219010) and a wholly owned subsidiary of Nelsonslaw LLP, a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (Reg No: OC335458).  Their registered offices are at Pennine House, 8 Stanford Street, Nottingham, NG1 7BQ. A list of members of Nelsonslaw LLP may be inspected at the registered office. Nelsons Solicitors Limited and Nelsonslaw LLP are authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Nelsons Solicitors Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Our notaries are regulated by the Faculty Office. Nelsons Solicitors Limited’s VAT No is 385 184 329.

 

We use the word “partner” to refer to a member of Nelsonslaw LLP and/or a director of Nelsons Solicitors Limited and its use in connection with the business of Nelsons Solicitors Limited should not be construed as an indication that any member or director carries on business in partnership with any other member or director within the meaning of the Partnership Act 1890.

We use cookies to improve your experience of our site (we do not track your identity). To comply with the new e-Privacy Directive we need to seek your consent to set these cookies. If you do not make a selection, we will assume that you consent to the cookies being set. Find out more. Accept
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT