The High Court judge in the sensational 'Wagatha Christie' libel trial has ruled that Rebekah Vardy "knew of and condoned" the decision to leak stories about Coleen Rooney to the press.
Vardy, 40, lost her bitter courtroom battle with 36-year-old Rooney after the verdict was announced at midday today (Friday July 29). The trial, which took place in May, centred around the explosive claims Vardy was leaking stories about Rooney to the press.
Vardy, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie, was suing Rooney, the wife of England star Wayne, for defamation in a hearing dubbed 'Wagatha Christie' by fans. Rooney uploaded several fake stories to her private Instagram account in a six month sting to find out who was sharing private information to The Sun newspaper.
READ MORE : Rebekah Vardy loses libel trial against Coleen Rooney in bitter 'Wagatha Christie' court battle
She then publicly accused the fellow WAG in the now-infamous Wagatha Christie tweet in October 2019 which ended: “It’s…… Rebekah Vardy’s account." In a judgment published today, Mrs Justice Steyn laid out her reasons for her decision in a 76-page document.
Considering whether Coleen's allegations were true and whether there was a public interest in her making them public, the judge said the following: "I have found that Ms Vardy was party to the disclosure to The Sun of the Marriage, Birthday, Halloween, Pyjamas, Car Crash, Gender Selection, Babysitting and Flooded Basement Posts.
"It is likely that Ms Watt undertook the direct act, in relation to each post, of passing the information to a journalist at The Sun. Nonetheless, the evidence analysed above clearly shows, in my view, that Ms Vardy knew of and condoned this behaviour, actively engaging in it by directing Ms Watt to the Private Instagram Account, sending her screenshots of Ms Rooney’s posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press via Ms Watt.
"It is also likely that additional information from the Private Instagram Account was passed to the press by them. It is evident that information that was passed to the press would not necessarily be published (e.g. the Babysitter Post).
"On some occasions, information is likely to have been disclosed to assist the press with articles they were already writing without warranting an enquiry by the press or being obvious that information had been derived from the Private Instagram Account (e.g. information as to whether Ms Rooney had gone to Florida).
"Press enquiries would not necessarily be run past Ms Rooney (e.g. Mr Stretford’s evidence regarding the Car Crash enquiry) and, given the deletion of Ms Monk’s email account when she left the company, there may have been more press enquiries than are apparent in the evidence.
"Having regard to the evidence that is available, and my conclusions regarding the evidence which is missing, it is appropriate to draw an inference that Ms Vardy and Ms Watt together leaked more information from the Private Instagram Account over the course of 2017-2019 than that which is contained in the eight posts to which I have referred.
"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 (see above) 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 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."
Read more of today's top stories here
READ NEXT:
