Long-running legal battle comes to end as judge highlights ‘extraordinary expenditure of costs’ incurred by both sides

The long and contentious legal saga between Rebekah Vardy and Coleen Rooney, commonly referred to as the 'Wagatha Christie' case, has reached a pivotal conclusion with a judge ruling that Vardy must pay at least £1.4 million in legal fees to Rooney. This decision culminates years of public and media scrutiny, following Rooney's viral social media post in October 2019, which accused Vardy of leaking private information to the press. The court proceedings had already established that Vardy's actions were considered to be a breach of trust, with Mrs Justice Steyn stating that Vardy likely knew about her agent's leaking of information. The case has drawn significant public attention not only because of the personalities involved but due to its implications regarding privacy, trust, and the interaction between public figures and media. In this latest development, Costs Judge Mark Whalan described the legal fees incurred by both parties as 'extraordinary', with Rooney's overall legal costs reportedly exceeding £1.8 million. The judge noted that Vardy's agreed payment of £1.19 million falls short of this figure, leading to further claims of assessment costs from Rooney's side. During the hearing, Vardy's barrister, Juliet Wells, claimed that the costs associated with Rooney’s legal fees were inflated and included charges for briefing the press. This stance indicates a continued lack of resolution between the two parties, with each side blaming the other for the lengthy legal proceedings. Legal costs, which have often overshadowed the narrative, serve to highlight the adversarial nature of their interactions, ultimately leaving both parties with substantial financial burdens. Judge Whalan expressed hope that this decision marks 'the end of a long and unhappy road' for both factions. The sentiments surrounding this case highlight not just the drama of celebrity conflict but raise broader questions regarding accountability in public life and media ethics. As the public continues to engage with this story, it remains vital to consider the implications this case has for similar future disclosures involving public figures.