Wagatha Christie libel trial: Rebekah Vardy says the judge 'got it wrong' as she responds to ruling

Rebekah Vardy has lost her libel trial against Coleen Rooney. 

The footballer's wife claimed Rooney had defamed her when she posted on Instagram that Vardy had been the source of leaks from her private Instagram account to the press. 

Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed the claim, ruling Rooney's Instagram post was "substantially true". 

Here are six key findings from today's ruling... 

1. Vardy condoned leaking to the press 

The judge ruled Vardy was aware her agent was leaking stories to the press on her behalf. However, she said there was a "degree of self-deception" from Vardy about the role she played. 

In her judgment, she wrote: "I have found that Ms Vardy was party to the disclosure to The Sun... 

"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."

2. Reveal post was 'true' but not necessarily in the public interest

The judge ruled in Rooney's favour and agreed the content of the reveal post was substantially true. However, she concluded it was "not reasonable to believe it was in the public interest" to publish the post without taking any steps to put the allegation to Vardy first and give her the opportunity to respond. 

3. Vardy 'deliberately' deleted evience

Much of the case centred around missing evidence - including a series of WhatsApp messages stored on a phone that mysteriously went missing in the North Sea, and a laptop destroyed by Vardy. 

The judge ruled this missing information was "not accidental" and it is likely Vardy deleted those messages, while her agent "deliberately" dropped her phone into the North Sea.

4. 'Robust evidence' Vardy's Instagram account was not compromised 

Vardy claimed in court other people may have had access to her account, and it was them who leaked the stories. 

The judge dismissed this claim, saying: "Aside from one occasion when Mr Jones was given access for a day, only Ms Vardy and Ms Watt accessed her account and Ms Vardy knew that was the case." 

5. Vardy a 'manifestly inconsistent witness' while Rooney 'honest and reliable' 

The judge ruled it was necessary to treat Vardy's evidence "with caution". Meanwhile, Rooney was deemed "honest and reliable" by the judge, who said she "sought to answer the questions she was asked without any evasion, and without conveying any sense that she was giving pre-prepared answers". 

6. It is likely Vardy leaked more information from Rooney's account 

The case centred around eight Instagram posts - but the judge ruled it likely Vardy leaked more information over the course of 2017-19. 

Rebekah Vardy needs to take a "long hard look at herself" before trying to reinvent herself, a former editor of The Sun has said.

Dominic Mohan told Sky News: "I think Rebekah Vardy should delete all her social media accounts and perhaps go on a long holiday."

He added that Rebekah and Jamie Vardy were "badly advised" during their ongoing legal battle.

"The whole thing has been quite obscene," he said.

"I think my advice to them would have been to settle - I know that Coleen Rooney did offer an olive branch on several occasions. But this could have been put to bed during the pandemic, nobody would remember it."

Vardy issued a plea to those who have subjected her to abuse to stop, and indicated she does not intend to appeal against the ruling, saying "the case is over".

She said: "As I explained in my evidence I, my family and even my unborn baby, were subjected to disgusting messages and vile abuse following Coleen's post and these have continued even during the course of the trial.

"Please can the people who have been abusing me and my family now stop. The case is over.

"I want to thank everyone who has supported me."

Rebekah Vardy has released a statement saying she is "extremely sad and disappointed" at the judge's decision on her libel claim against Coleen Rooney.

Mrs Vardy said in the statement: "I am extremely sad and disappointed at the decision that the judge has reached.

"It is not the result that I had expected, nor believe was just. I brought this action to vindicate my reputation and am devastated by the judge's finding.

"The judge accepted that publication of Coleen's post was not in the 'public interest' and she also rejected her claim that I was the 'Secret Wag'.

"But as for the rest of her judgement, she got it wrong and this is something I cannot accept."

Speaking for the first time since the judgment became public, Coleen Rooney has said in a statement that she was "pleased" the ruling went in her favour, but she "never believed" the case should have gone to court "at such expense in times of hardship for so many people when the money could have been far better spent helping others".

She said it was "not a case I ever sought or wanted".

Her statement continued: "Both before and after my social media posts in October 2019, I made every effort to avoid the need for such a drawn-out and public court case. All my attempts to do so were knocked back by Mrs (Rebekah) Vardy.

"This left me with no alternative but to go through with the case to defend myself and to end the repeated leaking of my private information to The Sun.

"These leaks from my private Instagram account began in 2017. They continued for almost two years, intruding on my privacy and that of my family. 

"Although I bear Mrs Vardy no ill-will, today’s judgment makes clear that I was right in what I said in my posts of October 2019.

"Finally, I would like to thank all of my legal team, my family, friends and everyone who supported me, including the public, through this difficult and stressful time."

Vardy's insistence on taking Rooney to trial was a "waste of money", a friend of Coleen has told Sky News.

TV personality Lizzie Cundy said she has not heard from Rooney since the judgment became public, but the ruling "hasn't come as a surprise" to her. 

"She did reach out to Rebekah to try to come and solve this in some way," said Ms Cundy. 

She said when the spat first began she'd even suggested to Rooney and Vardy that they, "Come over and have some prosecco and nuts and sort this out", adding: "Now Rebekah will be thinking, 'I should have listened'."

She added that "Rebekah's evidence just wasn't there.

"I mean the phone with all the crucial messages was at the bottom of the North Sea suddenly."

Regarding the pair's famous husbands, she said it was "very sad that two players who played for our country are now no longer friends".

Ms Cundy said while she feels sympathy for Vardy, "she didn't have to do this", adding she may not be "regretting" going to court.

"Coleen never ever wanted to go to court and never wanted it to get to this stage and sadly it did. 

"Coleen will be relieved, but its brought so much stress to her family and the knock-on effect to other family members.

"And it was unnecessary. Imagine having story after story being leaked to the press. And she had to get it stopped, and that is what she did, she put it on Instagram.

"But never did she think it would end up in the High Court."

The judge has ruled the reason Vardy's agent withdrew her evidence pre-trial was because she "knew the evidence in her statements was untrue".

Mrs Justice Steyn has said this was motivated in part due to her friend's welfare - but also because she knew what she was claiming was not true.

In her judgment, she writes: "In my view, the claimant's decision not to seek to call Ms Watt, against her will, was motivated, to a substantial degree, by concern for her friend's welfare.

"But in the circumstances, I also draw the inference that Mrs Vardy chose not to call Ms Watt because she knew that when tested in cross-examination her evidence would be shown to be untrue and that it would have been highly likely to have undermined the claimant's case that she had no involvement in disclosing information from the private Instagram account."

The judge has found Vardy was "manifestly inconsistent" on "many occasions" when she gave evidence in the trial.

In her judgment, she said: "It was evident that Mrs Vardy found the process of giving evidence stressful and, at times, distressing. I bear in mind when assessing her evidence the degree of stress she was naturally feeling, given the high-profile nature of the trial, the abuse that she has suffered since the reveal post was published, and the length of time she was in the witness box."

The judge added: "Nevertheless, I find that it is, unfortunately, necessary to treat Mrs Vardy's evidence with very considerable caution.

"There were many occasions when her evidence was manifestly inconsistent with the contemporaneous documentary evidence, e.g. in relation to the World Cup 2018 and the photoshopped pictures, and others where she was evasive."

Meanwhile the court praised Rooney's evidence as "honest and reliable". 

She also said there was a "degree of self-deception" on Vardy's part about her role in disclosing evidence.

"Although significant parts of Mrs Vardy's evidence were not credible, my assessment is that she is genuinely offended by the accusation made against her by Mrs (Coleen) Rooney in the reveal post.

"However, that is not because she was not involved in disclosing information from the private Instagram account: I have found that she was.

"Rather, her indignation at the accusation flows, in my judgment, from a combination of factors.

"Mrs Vardy's part in disclosing information to The Sun was, it seems to me, unthinking rather than part of a considered and concerted business practice."

The judge also finds it is "probable" Vardy leaked more information to the press than the eight posts mentioned at court.

In her judgment, she writes: "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."