PI Brief Update

Wagatha Costie - Philip Matthews, Temple Garden Chambers

16/04/25. The judgment in Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB) arose from an appeal concerning the costs associated with the highly publicised defamation proceedings between Rebekah Vardy (Claimant / Appellant) and Coleen Rooney (Defendant / Respondent). The Claimant’s original claim was unsuccessful, resulting in an order for her to pay 90% of the Defendant's costs on an indemnity basis. The appeal focused on whether the trial judge, Steyn J, erred in declining to find that the Defendant or her solicitors acted improperly or unreasonably as per CPR 44.11(1)(b).

At First Instance

The essential issue arose in relation to the Defendant’s Precedent H document, which detail both incurred and predicted costs. The Claimant contended that the Defendant's legal representatives provided misleading figures, failing to clarify that the costs listed were estimates deemed reasonable and proportionate for a standard basis assessment, rather than actual incurred costs. The Claimant argued that this misrepresentation skewed the comparison of incurred costs between the parties.

The trial judge concluded that, whilst the Defendant's solicitors should have been more transparent about the basis for their Precedent H figures, the failure to do so did not amount to unreasonable or improper conduct. The judge noted that the Defendant's legal team might reasonably have assumed that the Claimant's figures were also based on a similar interpretation of ‘reasonable and proportionate costs’.

On Appeal

The Claimant asserted two grounds of appeal: (i) that the trial judge was incorrect in finding that the Defendant's solicitors could have believed the Claimant had understated her costs; and (ii) that the judge wrongly dismissed the Defendant's conduct as unreasonable or improper despite acknowledging misleading presentations.

Mr Justice Kavanagh dismissed the appeal. His decision highlighted that, without clear evidence of deliberately misleading behaviour on the part of the Defendant’s legal team, their actions did not cross into the realm of misconduct as defined by CPR 44.11.

Image ©iStockphoto.com/catenarymedia