Online Defamation Lawyers Explain Vardy v. Rooney
The defamation lawsuit involving Rebekah Vardy and Coleen Rooney, often referred to as the "Wagatha Christie" trial, drew significant attention from the public and media.
Online Defamation Lawyers and the Financial Burden of Defamation Cases
Defamation cases, particularly those involving public figures, can be financially onerous. The costs incurred extend beyond legal fees and can encompass damages, court fees, and potential compensation. In the United Kingdom, the financial burden of legal proceedings can be exacerbated by the "loser pays" principle, which mandates that the unsuccessful party in litigation must bear not only their own legal expenses but also those incurred by the prevailing side. The complexity of defamation law, coupled with the necessity of gathering substantial evidence, contributes to the substantial legal fees.
The Rebekah Vardy v. Coleen Rooney Case: A High-Profile Example
By way of background, in 2020, Vardy sued Rooney for libel, and the case came to trial in May 2022, Vardy v. Rooney [2022] EWHC 2017 (QB). Mrs Vardy's claim was unsuccessful, leading to a legal costs order against her. Both women are well-known celebrities. Ms Vardy is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, and was a contestant on I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here in 2017, and Coleen Rooney was recently a contestant on the same show. The prominent libel case emerged when Mrs Rooney publicly accused Mrs Vardy on social media in 2019 of disclosing her private information to the media.
Appeal Overview: Vardy's Challenge to the Cost Order
This article is about the appeal by Rebekah Vardy against a costs order that mandated her to pay 90% of Rooney's costs on an indemnity basis Vardy v Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB)
Core Issue of the Appeal
The appeal focused on whether the judge erred by not finding that the defendant or her solicitors acted improperly or unreasonably in assessing legal costs awarded. This raises an important legal standard under CPR 44.11(1)(b), as determining unreasonableness or impropriety could impact the cost sanctions imposed on the claimant.
Key Legal Provisions To Note
● Cost Budgeting Requirements: Cost budgeting is significant, and the relevant practice direction specifically pertaining to Precedent H focuses on the critical need to accurately frame incurred and predicted costs during litigation.
● Court Powers on Misconduct: The analysis of CPR 44.11 relates primarily to the court's powers concerning misconduct in litigation. This rule empowers the court to disallow costs or require a party or their legal representative to pay costs incurred due to unreasonable or improper conduct.
● Principles from Bamrah Case: The case of Bamrah establishes critical principles relevant to CPR 44.11. It highlights that a legal representative's responsibility extends to the actions of their agents, including costs draftsmen. Hickinbottom LJ outlined essential principles, emphasising the solicitors' obligation to uphold their duty to the court. To establish improper conduct, conduct that is deemed unreasonable or a mere lapse in judgment or negligence would not suffice.
Cost Assessments and Issues of Transparency
The judgment noted significant discrepancies in the reported costs between the Claimant and Defendant, which raised discussions about proportionality and transparency in legal representations. The initial figures provided by both parties in their Precedents H show that the Claimant's incurred costs of approximately £431,158.49, whereas the Defendant reported £181,249.57, indicating that the Defendant's figures were about 42% of the Claimant's. The Defendant's solicitor explained that the figures in Precedent H reflected what was seen as proportionate costs for the litigation. The lower figures compared to actual costs were deemed necessary to avoid potential claims of disproportionate spending. The Claimant’s legal team argued that the Defendant's team should have been transparent about their approach.
Assumptions of Proportionality
Mrs. Vardy's lawyer, Jamie Carpenter KC, argued that Mrs. Rooney's legal team committed misconduct by underreporting some of her costs, which allowed her to exploit the apparent difference in incurred costs to challenge the other party's expenses, a move which he deemed misleading. Mr. Carpenter KC suggested that Mrs Rooney's solicitors might have mistakenly believed that the Claimant's costs were calculated on the same or similar basis. The solicitors representing Mrs Rooney argued that the budget they submitted was not meant to accurately depict the total costs involved in the case and that they assumed the solicitors for Mrs Vardy would do the same. By clarifying this point, they addressed any misunderstandings regarding the financial commitments and expectations of the proceedings. The judge determined that, while there was no conclusive evidence supporting Mrs Rooney's team's assumption, it was reasonable for the Defendant’s solicitors to act under that belief, emphasising the reasonable expectation for both parties to conduct their cost assessments in a similar manner. The judge acknowledged that although the Defendant’s legal team could have provided more clarity regarding their costs, their lack of transparency did not necessarily indicate unreasonable or improper conduct as outlined by CPR 44.11.
Grounds for Appeal Examination
- Ground 1 focused on whether the Defendant's solicitors actually believed the Claimant also used a proportional costs basis. The judge found enough evidence to support that the Defendant's team may have operated under that belief, which mitigated claims of misconduct.
- Ground 2 centered on claims that the submissions from the Defendant were misleading. The judge, while acknowledging a lack of transparency, concluded that it did not meet the threshold of “unreasonable” or “improper” conduct as it was based on a reasonable assumption.
Judgment of Mr Justice Cavanagh
The judgment addressed the interpretation of incurred costs in Precedent H and the reasonable expectations of legal representatives regarding transparency in cost disclosures during litigation. Interpretation of Precedent H: The judge agreed with the lower court that it is acceptable for solicitors to present only those costs they deem proportionate, without the necessity to disclose actual incurred costs. This understanding stems from the precedent set in the Pan-NOx case.
Conclusion: No Grounds for Overturning the Lower Court's Decision
The judge ultimately found no grounds to overturn the lower court's decision under CPR 44.11, establishing that the actions of the Defendant's legal team, while arguably flawed in transparency, did not constitute misconduct.
Engaging Online Defamation Lawyers And Online Defamation Solicitors
Engaging a defamation lawyer is imperative for navigating the complexities of defamation law. A skilled lawyer can provide invaluable guidance on the merits of a case, potential defences, and the likelihood of success. For businesses and individuals alike, the expertise of a defamation lawyer can be instrumental in mitigating legal costs and safeguarding reputation.
Protective Strategies for Addressing Online Defamation
Proactive strategies are essential for addressing online defamation. These may include monitoring digital platforms for defamatory content, engaging with social media platforms to remove harmful content, and pursuing legal action where necessary. A comprehensive approach to digital reputation management can mitigate the risk of defamation and its associated financial implications.
Question and Answer for Potential Clients Considering a Defamation Claim
Q: Should I pursue a defamation claim if I believe my reputation has been harmed?
A: While pursuing a defamation claim can be a means to protect your reputation, it is essential to consider the potential financial implications, including the possibility of being liable for the opposing party's legal costs if you do not succeed. It’s advisable to consult with a legal professional who can assess the merits of your case, advise on the likelihood of success, and help you understand the cost landscape associated with such claims.
Q: What is online defamation, and how is it different from traditional defamation?
A: Online defamation refers to false statements made about a person or entity online that damage their reputation. While the fundamental principles of defamation remain the same—false statements causing harm—the digital nature includes unique challenges such as the speed of publication and the broad audience reach.
Q: What types of statements can be considered defamatory?
A: Defamatory statements can include false accusations about a person's behavior, character, professional qualifications, or illegal activities. In online platforms, this could also include misleading reviews or comments made on social media.
Q: What is the time limit for filing a defamation lawsuit?
A: Statutes of limitations vary by state or country but typically range from one to three years from the date of publication of the defamatory statement. In the UK its one year from the date of publication. It’s critical to act promptly.
Q: How Do Online Defamation Lawyers Charge Fees?
A: Our costs can vary widely depending on the complexity of the case, court fees, and possible expert witness fees. We offer initial paid consultations to discuss fees and the merits of your case.
Conclusion: Addressing Defamation Law in the Digital Age
By engaging with experienced online defamation lawyers and adopting a comprehensive approach to digital reputation management, businesses and individuals can mitigate the risks associated with defamation and protect their valuable digital assets.
Useful Links
Online Defamation Legal Services Page
Meet The Team: Peter Adediran; Maya El Husseini; Gabrielle Felix; Poppy Harston
Contact Us for More Information
For a quotation, please contact us at (020) 7305-7491 or peter@pailsolicitors.co.uk. We would be delighted to assist you. The writer is Mr Peter Adediran, the owner and principal solicitor at PAIL® Solicitors and a specialist in online reputation-related law. Subscribe to our newsletter to get blog post updates and other information about the firm straight to your inbox.