The ongoing legal saga between Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy has reached another turning point, with the High Court firmly rejecting Vardy’s claims that Rooney’s legal team, acted improperly during the costs budgeting process. This decision, stemming from the Vardy v Rooney [2025] EWHC 851, commonly referred to as the Wagatha Christie Libel trial, has provided significant clarity on what constitutes misconduct during the costs budgeting phase of high-profile litigation.

Background to the Dispute: A Brief Insight

The case originated from the July 2022 defamation ruling, where Rebekah Vardy – wife of Leicester City Striker Jamie Vardy, sued Coleen Rooney, the wife of Manchester United Striker Wayne Rooney, over a viral social media post. The court ultimately found Rooney’s accusation – that Vardy had leaked personal stories and information to the press, including popular tabloid newspaper The Sun– was substantially true.

Following the judgement, Vardy was ordered to pay 90% of Mrs Rooney’s legal costs, Including an initial payment of £800,000 due. The costs dispute that followed involved the interpretation of each party’s agreed costs budget and how their legal teams presented incurred costs to the court.

The Cost Budget Controversy

After the ruling ordered Vardy to pay 90% on an indemnity basis, it was alleged that Rooney’s legal team misled the court by understating some of her costs in the budgeting exercise. Specifically, Vardy claimed Rooney’s team provided low incurred costs that did not reflect actual spending, while attacking Vardy’s higher figures.

This appeal was brought after Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon–Saker, now retired, ruled against Vardy’s allegations. He found that while Rooney’s team may have been unclear, they had not acted improperly.

On appeal, Mr Justice Cavanagh, sitting with Acting Senior Costs Judge Rowley, upheld that decision, confirming that the lawyers did not commit misconduct.

Key Points from the Ruling

The core issue was whether Rooney and her legal team deliberately misled the court by failing to explain that their budget figures were not the actual sums spent, but what they believed would be recoverable under a standard assessment.

The High Court concluded that although the behaviour of Rooney’s legal representation was not largely transparent, it was not sufficiently unreasonable or improper to constitute misconduct. There was no solid evidence that Rooney’s lawyers knew Vardy’s figures were based on actual costs when they challenged them.

Mr Justice Cavanagh explained:

“The position we are left with, therefore, is that the court was not persuaded that the claimant has proved that the defendant’s legal advisors had deliberately misled the court (or the claimant either by things said or things not said.”

He emphasised that while there was a “misjudgement” in not being more transparent, this did not cross the line into improper conduct.

On Estimating vs. Spending: Wagatha Christie Legal Costs

One of the central distinctions addressed was the difference between actual legal spending and figures estimated in cost budgets. The court reaffirmed that presenting an estimate of what a party believes would be considered reasonable and proportionate is lawful – especially when the actual costs may not pass scrutiny in costs assessment.

Ben Williams KC, who represented Rooney alongside Jamie Carpenter KC, clarified:

“This case highlights the curious nature of the costs budgeting exercise – which is not directed at what a party is spending, but what they intend to claim in any future standard basis assessment.”

This is important for legal practitioners who routinely provide estimated figures in agreed costs budgets, particularly when they believe actual costs might exceed recoverable thresholds.

The Broader Legal Impact

This decision reinforces the principle that a lack of full transparency during costs budgeting – while open to criticism – does not automatically equate to misconduct.

Moreover, the ruling helps protect common practice in litigation where parties use tactically modest costs budgets, particularly when expecting to lose interim hearings. The High Court’s message is clear: using a conservative approach does not amount to understanding the legal costs in a way that breaches ethical or legal standards, as long as it’s not knowingly misleading.

The decision also highlights how assumptions made by legal teams – such as the belief that both sides were presenting costs based on the same method – can impact how courts interpret alleged misconduct.

Final Thoughts: Wagatha Christie Legal Costs

In rejecting Vard’s appeal, the High Court has drawn a firm line between poor judgement and professional misconduct. For legal professionals and Legal Costs Draftsmen, this case serves as a key reference point for the evolving landscape of litigation budgeting.

Now that the court has delivered its judgement in one of the most widely publicised libel trials in recent memory, this outcome reinforces the principle: unless a party knowingly misleads the court, using estimated recoverable costs instead of actual expenditure does not amount to misconduct.

How can Greener Costs Assist?

At Greener Costs, we specialise in navigating the complexities of legal costs management with precision and integrity. Our experienced team supports solicitors and law firms in preparing compliant, realistic, and strategically sound costs budgets – whether at the outset of proceedings or in response to emerging disputes.

From costs estimates and detailed bills of costs to advocacy at detailed assessment hearings, we ensure that your budgeting reflects both transparency and tactical foresight.

Whether you’re looking for a skilled Costs Draftsman or an experienced Costs Lawyer, greener Costs is ready to assist. Get in touch today at info@greenercosts.co.uk or fill out our enquiry form below to ensure your costs are prepared accurately, efficiently, and in line with current best practice.