Rebekah Vardy falsely accused of leaking stories about Coleen Rooney, court hears

‘Whatever leaks there were did not come from [Rebekah Vardy],’ say lawyers defending her

Rebekah Vardy “did nothing wrong” and was falsely accused by Coleen Rooney of leaking stories about her private life, the High Court has heard.

The wife of former England player Wayne Rooney claimed in October that Mrs Vardy, 38, who is also married to a footballer, had leaked false stories planted by Mrs Rooney to The Sun.

Mrs Rooney, 34, gained the nickname “Wagatha Christie” after she carried out a “sting operation” and posted a series of fake stories on her personal Instagram account to “see if they made their way into The Sun”.

She wrote: “For a few years now someone who I trusted to follow me on my personal Instagram account has been consistently informing The Sun newspaper of my private posts and stories.

“I have saved and screenshotted [sic] all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them.

“It’s……….. Rebekah Vardy’s account,” she revealed dramatically.

Mrs Vardy, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, has denied the accusations and is suing Mrs Rooney for damages for libel.

The first hearing of the legal battle began on Thursday, with Mr Justice Warby being asked to determine the “natural and ordinary” meaning of Mrs Rooney’s posts on her social media.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, who represents Mrs Vardy, said the allegations were an “untrue and unjustified defamatory attack” which was “published and republished to millions of people”.

“In fact, she did nothing wrong,” he said of his client. “Whatever leaks there were did not come from her.”

He said Mrs Rooney’s posts on Instagram featured “a build-up to the ‘big reveal’ of the identity of the person responsible”, adding: “The description of the defendant’s detective work makes it clear that the claimant is being said to be responsible for the leaking of the three specific stories mentioned.”

The false stories that Mrs Vardy was alleged to have leaked to The Sun included “gender selection in Mexico”, Mrs Rooney returning to TV, and flooding in the basement of her new house.

Mrs Vardy’s lawyers argued that the meaning of Mrs Rooney’s posts was that she had “consistently and repeatedly betrayed the defendant’s trust over several years by leaking the defendant’s private and personal Instagram posts and stories for publication in The Sun”.

Mrs Rooney’s legal team said the posts mean “there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimant was responsible for consistently passing on information about the defendant’s private Instagram posts and stories to The Sun newspaper”.

Her barrister, David Sherborne, said in written submissions: “It is true that the claimant was responsible for consistently passing on information about the defendant’s private Instagram posts and stories to The Sun, and that this was part of her history and practice of providing private information to the press, especially The Sun, with whom she had a very close relationship.”

He said that the post accusing Mrs Vardy of leaking the stories came after Mrs Rooney posted “earlier warnings” that had been posted publicly and privately, “as a result of information from her private social media accounts being leaked to The Sun”.

Mrs Rooney “deliberately limited the accessibility” to the private Instagram account she used, as well as the “sting operation stories” to just Mrs Vardy.

“The fact that these sting-operation stories also then appeared in The Sun, after access to her private account was limited to just the beckyvardy account, is the reason why the defendant published the post which is the subject of this claim,” said Mr Sherborne.

He said that those who read the post in question would have been given the impression that it was Mrs Vardy’s account that was the source of the leaked stories, “not Rebekah Vardy herself”.

“The impression the post gives the ordinary reader stops short of guilt,” he added.

Mrs Vardy said in her written claim filed with her court that she had been worried she would lose her baby because of the stress the post had caused, as she was pregnant at the time.

Her lawyers alleged she suffered “extreme distress, hurt, anxiety and embarrassment as a result of the publication of the post and the events which followed”.

The hearing continues at the Royal Courts of Justice in London.