LANDMARK JUDGMENTS - Rebekah Vardy v. Coleen Rooney

The Trial knowns as Wagatha Christie trial also popularly known as “Seven Days Trial”, was between 2 well-known personalities. Rebekah Vardy (claimant) filed a libel claim against Ms. Coleen Rooney (defendant)on 9 October 2019, and both are well known media and television personalities.

There was a tussle going on from a long time between Rebekah Vardy and Coolen Rooney by allegedly revealing private information about each other’s personal life resulting into their breach of right to privacy.

The claim was brought by the claimant in respect of a post published by Ms. Rooney on 9 October 2019 (‘the Reveal Post’) on Twitter, Facebook and her public Instagram account. Where in the court applied according to which Sec. 1 of Defamation Act 2013, that the “publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant”, is met. The defendant has large follower base of around a million or more on various social media platform. Where as Ms. Rooney relies on two statutory defenses’, namely the defence of truth and the defence of publication on a matter of public interest.

After hearing the arguments from both the parties and looking into the evidence, and after considering the facts and circumstance of the case, the court came to the following conclusion. 

Judgement: 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.

In her ruling, Judge Steyn said Rooney's evidence was "honest and reliable", but labelled Vardy's evidence "manifestly inconsistent... evasive or implausible".  

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.

In her ruling, Mrs. Justice Steyn ruled the claims made by Rooney in her Twitter post were "substantially true." Mrs. Justice Steyn said it was "likely" Vardy's agent, Caroline Watt, passed information to The Sun. Vardy faced "vile abuse" from the public following Rooney's reveal tweet, Justice Steyn wrote. In a statement, Rooney said she is "pleased" the judge ruled in her favour, but that "it was not a case I ever sought or wanted." Vardy said she is "extremely sad and disappointed" with the ruling but she does not intend to appeal.

Therefore, the court rejected the claim and directed the claimant to pay legal cost incurred by Ms. Rooney of around 2 million euros.

Written by

Hrithik Chormare

LinkedIn