Rebekah Vardy has initiated an appeal against a recent decision regarding the legal costs of Coleen Rooney, marking another chapter in the ongoing Wagatha Christie saga. Last month, lawyers for both parties reconvened at the High Court to address the legal expenses claimed by Mrs. Rooney, of which Mrs. Vardy had been ordered to cover 90% in a prior ruling.

During a three-day hearing in early October, Mrs. Vardy’s legal team contended that the total amount of Mrs. Rooney’s costs should be lowered due to what they described as “serious misconduct” by Mrs. Rooney’s attorneys. However, Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker concluded that, although it was a close call, there was insufficient evidence of wrongdoing by Mrs. Rooney’s legal representatives. He stated that this case did not warrant a reduction in the amount Mrs. Vardy was required to pay.

Recent court filings reveal that Mrs. Vardy is pursuing an appeal related to this misconduct finding, as confirmed by her lawyers from Kingsley Napley to the PA news agency. The BBC has reached out to Mrs. Rooney’s legal team for comments on this appeal request.

Mrs. Vardy, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, suffered defeat in the original Wagatha Christie trial in 2022. Her lawsuit stemmed from accusations made by Mrs. Rooney, wife of Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, who publicly alleged that Mrs. Vardy leaked private details about her to the media. Although Mrs. Vardy claimed libel, Justice Steyn ruled in July 2022 that Mrs. Rooney’s allegations were “substantially true,” leading to an order for Mrs. Vardy to pay 90% of Mrs. Rooney’s legal costs, starting with an upfront payment of £800,000.

In previous hearings held in London, it was revealed that Mrs. Rooney’s claim for legal expenses totaled £1,833,906.89—more than triple her previously agreed budget of £540,779.07. Mrs. Vardy’s attorney Jamie Carpenter KC argued this figure was excessive and alleged misconduct on the part of Mrs. Rooney’s team regarding their cost reporting tactics.

In response, Robin Dunne representing Mrs. Rooney asserted there had been no misconduct and described claims of misleading behavior as unfounded. He emphasized that the budget was not intended as a definitive account of her total legal costs but rather a preliminary estimate not meant to constrain actual expenses incurred during litigation.