A Costly Exercise

We previously reported on a preliminary hearing in the defamation case currently under way between Rebekah Vardy and Coleen Rooney. In short, Mrs Rooney accused Mrs Vardy of leaking confidential information to the press across her social media platforms.

The matter has recently been before the Court again in respect of case management matters, such as consideration of the parties’ costs budgets to take the matter to trial. During that hearing, the Barrister representing Mrs Vardy confirmed that it was the intention of Mrs Vardy to seek to strike out parts of Mrs Rooney’s defence. This is not uncommon in litigation and accordingly is not the most surprising thing to come out of the hearing.

The most surprising thing is the size of the costs budgets submitted to the Court. Judge Roger Eastman described them as “extraordinarily large’, which, when set in the context of Mrs Rooney’s that totalled £402,312 and Mrs Vardy’s which totalled £897,000, seems a justified comment by the Judge.

Comment

Costs budgeting was first introduced in 2013 with a view to limiting the costs that are recoverable between the parties with a view to seeking to make litigation more proportionate and to allow the Court to control costs more closely.

As can be seen from the costs budgets submitted in this case, it is difficult to see how this goal has been achieved. That said, the costs budgeting stage, which is only applicable in cases worth at least £25,000 and/or very complex cases where the parties are legally represented, is a relatively complex stage and getting it wrong at that stage can seriously affect how much legal costs are recoverable by the winning party at conclusion quite significantly.