Rebekah Vardy has initiated an appeal regarding a recent decision on the legal expenses of Coleen Rooney, marking a new chapter in the ongoing Wagatha Christie saga. Legal representatives for both parties returned to the High Court last month to contest the costs claimed by Mrs. Rooney, with 90% of those costs previously assigned to Mrs. Vardy following an earlier ruling.

During a three-day hearing in early October, Mrs. Vardy’s attorneys argued that Mrs. Rooney’s legal costs should be lowered, citing what they described as “serious misconduct” by Mrs. Rooney’s legal team. However, Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker concluded that, on balance, he found no significant wrongdoing by Mrs. Rooney’s lawyers. Consequently, he determined it was inappropriate to adjust the amount that Mrs. Vardy is required to pay.

Recent court filings reveal that Mrs. Vardy has officially filed for an appeal concerning this misconduct ruling, as confirmed by her legal representatives at Kingsley Napley to the PA news agency. The BBC has reached out to Mrs. Rooney’s legal team for comments on this new appeal request.

Mrs. Vardy, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, lost the initial Wagatha Christie case in 2022. This legal battle began when Mrs. Rooney publicly accused someone using Mrs. Vardy’s Instagram account of leaking confidential information about her to the media. In response, Mrs. Vardy filed a libel suit; however, in July 2022, Mrs. Justice Steyn ruled that the allegation was “substantially true.”

As a result of this ruling, Mrs. Vardy was ordered to cover 90% of Mrs. Rooney’s legal fees, which included an upfront payment of £800,000. During the previous hearing in London, it was revealed that Mrs. Rooney’s claimed legal expenses totaled £1,833,906.89—over three times her previously agreed budget of £540,779.07.

Mrs. Vardy’s attorney Jamie Carpenter KC contended that this total was “disproportionate” and accused Mrs. Rooney’s legal team of misconduct for allegedly understating some of her costs to create a misleading comparison with the opposing party’s expenses.

In contrast, Robin Dunne representing Mrs. Rooney insisted there had been no misconduct and deemed it “illogical” to suggest any misleading actions took place while arguing that reducing the owed amount was fundamentally flawed; he emphasized that the budget was not intended as an exact or binding representation of overall legal costs.