No misconduct by Rooney lawyers over Wagatha costs, High Court judge rules

Coleen Rooney’s lawyers did not commit misconduct after being accused of “deliberately” understating some of her costs in her high-profile Wagatha Christie libel battle with Rebekah Vardy, a High Court judge has ruled.

Mrs Vardy unsuccessfully sued Mrs Rooney in 2022, with the two now in further dispute over how much Mrs Vardy should pay in legal costs as a result.

In October last year, a specialist costs judge ruled Mrs Rooney’s lawyers did not commit misconduct after they were accused by Mrs Vardy’s legal team of understating some of her costs.

The appeal must fail on the basis that the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that he came to

Mrs Vardy appealed against the decision last month, claiming it constituted “serious misconduct”, while Mrs Rooney’s lawyers claimed the challenge was “misconceived”.

In a ruling on Thursday, High Court judge Mr Justice Cavanagh dismissed the appeal.

He said: “The appeal must fail on the basis that the judge was entitled to reach the conclusion that he came to.”

In 2019, Mrs Rooney, the wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Mrs Vardy of leaking her private information to the press on social media, which Mrs Justice Steyn found in July 2022 was “substantially true”.

The judge later ordered Mrs Vardy, the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, to pay 90% of Mrs Rooney’s costs, including an initial payment of £800,000.

A hearing last October was told that Mrs Rooney’s claimed legal bill – £1,833,906.89 – was more than three times her “agreed costs budget of £540,779.07”.

Jamie Carpenter KC, for Mrs Vardy, said that this was “disproportionate”, and that the earlier “understatement” of some costs was “improper and unreasonable” and used to “attack the other party’s costs”.

Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker said that while there was a “failure to be transparent” by Mrs Rooney’s legal team, he found “on balance and, I have to say, only just” that they had not committed wrongdoing.

In written submissions for the appeal against the decision last month, Mr Carpenter said Mrs Rooney “very substantially understated” her costs by around 40% in her budget, known as a “precedent H”, in 2021, and that the amount Mrs Vardy should pay should therefore be reduced.

Benjamin Williams KC, for Mrs Rooney, said in his written submissions that her budget was “properly and correctly completed” and there was “no tenable case” of misconduct.

In a 38-page ruling, Mr Justice Cavanagh found that Judge Gordon-Saker had “ample material” to reach his decision, adding that there was “no valid basis for challenging on appeal the judge’s conclusion”.

He said: “The court was not persuaded that the claimant had proved that the defendant’s legal advisers had deliberately misled the court, or the claimant, either by things said or things not said.

“There had been a misjudgment in the form of a failure to be more transparent about the basis upon which the defendant’s figures for incurred costs had been prepared, but that was as far as it went.

“The judge was entitled to make the evaluative judgment that this did not amount to unreasonable or improper behaviour, especially as he was so well-placed to form a view about practice in relation to costs.”

In a separate ruling on Thursday, Mrs Vardy largely lost a bid for access to more documents in relation to costs.

Her lawyers asked the court in February to order Mrs Rooney’s team to hand over “privileged” documents, details about her claim for VAT, and further information about retainers between Mrs Rooney and her solicitors.

Mrs Rooney’s lawyers resisted the bid, describing it as a “fishing expedition”.

On Thursday, Senior Costs Judge Mark Whalan said he was “not persuaded” Mrs Vardy’s lawyers should be allowed to inspect VAT documents, or other privileged material.

But he ruled they should be allowed to see a redacted retainer between Mrs Rooney and her solicitors.

Judge Whalan also ordered Mrs Vardy to pay almost £11,000 of costs of the application, stating that he must “conclude realistically” that it “is the defendant and not the claimant” who had been successful.

After the rulings, a spokesperson for Mrs Vardy said: “In terms of the two judgments today, we are gratified disclosure has been obliged in one ruling whilst being respectfully disappointed that, in the other judgment, our appeal was not successful.

“Now we just wish to move on and look to the future. We will be making no further comment at this time.”