rebekah vardy’s attorney says coleen rooney ‘revelled’ in wagatha christie nickname in courtroom drama

rebekah vardy and coleen rooney are in a libel trial

rebekah vardy’s attorney fired photographs at coleen rooney claiming she revelled in the nickname wagatha christie on the primary day of their libel listening to.

coleen, the wife of former england star wayne rooney publicly accused the guy wag’s account of sharing three fake testimonies about her in october 2019. they included rooney, 36, traveling to mexico for a “gender selection” procedure, her planning a return to television, and a flood in her basement.

she published the stories on a personal instagram account among august and october that 12 months, after developing suspicious vardy’s account turned into leaking memories to the solar newspaper. mrs vardy, 40, who’s married to leicester city striker jamie vardy, denies the accusations and is suing mrs rooney for libel at london’s high courtroom.

hugh tomlinson quality control, representing mrs vardy, instructed the decide rooney’s put up became built like a “mini whodunnit” and the high-quality monitor: “it’s rebekah vardy’s account” a “thoroughly used word now”.

in a skeleton argument submitted to the trial, which is sitting before mrs justice steyn, attorneys for vardy said rooney’s ‘assertion’ put up turned into “intentionally crafted in a dramatic and sensationalist style” and become a “extreme assault on mrs vardy”.

he advised the court nowadays: “we say this careful research changed into unsuitable from the start. as it’s obvious for everybody who is aware of anything about the operation of social media and that i’m positive mrs rooney does understand some thing about it.

“the fact someone has an account doesn’t imply they are the handiest man or woman who accessed it. mrs rooney turned into then dubbed ‘wagatha christie’. something that she seems to have revelled in.

“she copied in her cell smartphone, we recently determined, the little images people had performed making her up as agatha christie and so forth.”

he stated it was “obvious to all people” that one of the three memories mrs rooney relies on, about her returning to tv, had “definitely had nothing to do with the submit”.

mr tomlinson said the submit mentioned i’m a movie star and the thing cited strictly come dancing. he said: “in any occasion, the equal tale have been repeated in some of media outlets numerous times within the course of 2019.
“it’s miles commonplace [through rooney] that the content of the television decision post and article do no longer suit up absolutely. they do not have some thing to do with every other.

“the reality is there has been no irrefutable proof that mrs vardy changed into the individual that mrs rooney was involved approximately leaking continually and over a number of years her private information. mrs rooney has no direct proof of any of this.”

he added: “the publish became defamatory, that has been not unusual ground from the start. we are able to now proceed on the idea it’s defamatory it causes critical damage so mrs vardy is entitled to damages for defamation unless mrs rooney can establish a defence this is recognised to the regulation.”

the trial keeps.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.