Coleen Rooney’s lawyer minibar bill only amounted to £7 in Wagatha Christie case, court told
Coleen Rooney has been accused of ‘extraordinary’ spending in her legal battle with Rebekah Vardy.
For free real time breaking news alerts sent straight to your inbox sign up to our breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
Sign up to our free breaking news emails
A minibar bill run up by one of Coleen Rooney’s lawyers consisted of “two bottles of water” which amounted to £7, a court has heard.
This comes amid claims of “extraordinary” spending during her high-profile Wagatha Christie libel battle with Rebekah Vardy, the High Court has been told.
Mrs Vardy sued Mrs Rooney for libel after Mrs Rooney accused her of leaking private information to the press on social media in 2019, but Mrs Justice Steyn ruled in July 2022 that the accusation was “substantially true”.
In October 2022, the judge ordered Mrs Vardy to pay 90% of Mrs Rooney’s legal costs, with their lawyers returning to court in London in a dispute over how much should be paid.
Barristers for Mrs Vardy told the court in written submissions that some of Mrs Rooney’s legal costs were “extraordinary”, including money for a lawyer staying “at the Nobu Hotel, incurring substantial dinner and drinks charges as well as minibar charges”.
But on Tuesday, Mrs Rooney’s barrister, Robin Dunne, said that the comment had been made “no doubt to try and argue that the defendant has been profligate in her spending on this litigation” and that it gave a “misleading and factually inaccurate” account.
It is both misleading and factually inaccurate and it is potentially defamatory and steps are being taken in that respect
He said: “Yesterday morning, The Sun ran a front-page headline which dealt with minibar charges.
“It also was reported around the world, over and over again on Twitter, or X, and the impression given by the claimant, Mrs Vardy, when she spoke to The Sun or her sources, was clearly that this was evidence of the defendant spending wildly and that is what she says was wholly unreasonable.
“There are some factual inaccuracies. It is both misleading and factually inaccurate and it is potentially defamatory, and steps are being taken in that respect.”
Mr Dunne said that one of Mrs Rooney’s solicitors only stayed at the hotel due to a problem with their original booking elsewhere.
He said: “(The solicitor) did not book the Nobu Hotel. He booked a modest hotel but on the first night of staying there did not have any working wifi or shower.
“He was offered to stay at the Nobu by the defendant’s agent, who has a preferential rate.”
Mr Dunne said that the food and minibar tab ran up to £225, but said the minibar tab “ran to £7, and ran to two bottles of water”.
Mr Dunne continued that the solicitor paid £295 per night to stay at the hotel when going rates are more than £600 a night.
Jamie Carpenter KC, for Mrs Vardy, said in response: “We do say that the defendant’s costs are extravagant, but the line-by-line issues are for another occasion.”
We do say that the defendant’s costs are extravagant, but the line-by-line issues are for another occasion
The hearing is dealing with points of principle before a line-by-line assessment of costs, which is due to take place at a later date.
In written submissions, Mr Carpenter said that Mrs Rooney’s total claimed legal bill – £1,833,906.89 – was more than three times her “agreed costs budget of £540,779.07” and was “disproportionate”.
He also claimed that Mrs Rooney had previously understated some of her earlier costs, which was “improper and unreasonable” and amounted to “serious misconduct, which involved knowingly misleading Mrs Vardy and the court”.
He said that this should lead to a reduction in the amount of money to be paid by Mrs Vardy.
But Mr Dunne said in his written submissions that Mrs Vardy had shown “deplorable conduct” throughout the case, and added: “It sits ill in Mrs Vardy’s mouth to now claim that Mrs Rooney’s costs, a great deal of which were caused directly by her conduct, are unreasonable.”
In court on Monday, he said that Mrs Vardy’s argument “smacks, with the best will in the world, of desperation” and that the outcome of the court battle was “utterly devastating to her”.
He said: “It is probably the most ill-advised legal action since Oscar Wilde put pen to writ.”
In the viral social media post in October 2019 at the heart of the libel claim, Mrs Rooney, the wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, said she had carried out a months-long “sting operation” and accused Mrs Vardy of leaking information about her private life to the press.
Mrs Rooney publicly claimed Mrs Vardy’s account was the source behind three stories in The Sun newspaper featuring fake details she had posted on her private Instagram profile – her travelling to Mexico for a “gender selection” procedure, her planning to return to TV and the basement flooding at her home.
After the high-profile trial, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled in Mrs Rooney’s favour, finding it was “likely” that Mrs Vardy’s agent, Caroline Watt, had passed information to The Sun and that Mrs Vardy, the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, “knew of and condoned this behaviour” and had “actively” engaged.
The hearing before Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker, which neither Mrs Rooney nor Mrs Vardy attended on Tuesday, is expected to conclude on Wednesday.