[ad_1]
COLEEN ROONEY’s post accusing Rebekah Vardy of leaking stories about her private life to the media “clearly identified” her as “guilty of the serious and ongoing breach of trust that she alleges,” the Superior Court ruled.
Rooney, 34, accused Vardy, 38, of leaking “false stories” about her private life to the media last October, after running a months-long “sting operation” that dubbed her “Wagatha Christie “.
The wife of former England star Wayne Rooney claimed that the wife of his fellow footballer, Vardy, shared fake stories she had posted on her personal Instagram account with The Sun newspaper.
Rooney wrote on Instagram and Twitter: “I have saved and captured all the original stories that clearly show that only one person has seen them.
“It is ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account “.
Vardy, who is married to Leicester City forward Jamie Vardy, denies the allegations and is suing Rooney for defamation damages.
In a ruling delivered today, Judge Warby ruled that the “natural and ordinary” meaning of Rooney’s posts was that Vardy had “regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower of Ms. Rooney’s personal Instagram account. by secretly informing The Sun newspaper of the private publications and stories. “
In announcing his decision, the judge said that the meaning he had determined was “substantially the same as that of the plaintiff.”
It also awarded costs of £ 22,913.50 to Vardy pending the end of the trial.
In his ruling, Judge Warby said that Ms Rooney’s message was “a considerate post, using wording composed with some care,” adding:
It would be clear to the ordinary reader from the outset that his intention was serious and that he intended to convey a message of some importance.
He also rejected Ms Rooney’s claim that she was simply referring to Vardy’s Instagram account, rather than Vardy herself.
The judge ruled: “I certainly do not believe that the ordinary reader would take that single word (story), albeit repeated, to indicate that Ms. Rooney still has doubts about who the wrongdoer was.”
He added: “There is nothing in these words, other than the word ‘account’, that in any way suggests that the behavior that Ms. Rooney is complaining about could have been carried out by someone other than the owner of the account, Mrs. Vardy. “
“I do not believe or assume that anything done on social media on behalf of a personality can be done by someone else, without the knowledge or approval of the account holder,” the judge said.
“I also don’t think that everyone thinks or believes or assumes these things. It is more likely that there is a variety of facts and a variety of opinions, and some cynics think that each tweet of each celebrity is made by some PR and others naively believe that each tweet of this type is always the work of the celebrity without help ”
Defending
At a hearing yesterday, Vardy’s attorney, Hugh Tomlinson QC, said that Rooney’s posts were a “false and unjustified defamatory attack” that was “published and republished for millions of people.”
He added: “In fact, she did nothing wrong. The leaks that did not come from her. “
No news is bad news
Support the magazine
your contributions help us continue to deliver the stories that are important to you
Support us now
David Sherborne, representing Rooney, argued that it was “true” that Vardy was “responsible for constantly relaying information about the defendant’s private Instagram posts and stories to The Sun”.
He said, “Ms. Rooney intends to defend these words as true in any meaning.”
Tomlinson told the court that at this time he would seek costs of £ 22,913.50 from Rooney, as it is customary for “the losing party to pay the costs.”
Sherborne, for Rooney, said that the meaning argued by Vardy’s attorneys and the meaning dictated by Judge Warby were different in some respects and ultimately does not affect how the case proceeds.
He added: “It is true both ways because Ms. Vardy was responsible for the source of those leaks, either herself or through her agent.”
Judge Warby awarded the costs to Ms Vardy at this stage, rather than waiting for the end of the trial.
The court also heard that both Vardy and Rooney had agreed to a “stay” of the process until February, so there could be “one last attempt to resolve the matter without the need for a full trial.”
[ad_2]