Wagatha Christie libel ruling
A £1.4m lesson in legal costs.
Last week (6 May) saw a key development in the long-running ‘Wagatha Christie’ libel saga, as Rebekah Vardy was ordered to pay Coleen Rooney £1,402,266.20 in legal costs, following Vardy’s failed defamation claim.
The case captured media attention after Rooney publicly accused Vardy’s Instagram account of leaking fake stories to The Sun newspaper – stories Rooney had planted to uncover the source of leaks. Vardy sued for libel, but the High Court dismissed her claim in 2022, finding Rooney’s post to be “substantially true.”
Costs decision breakdown
The recent ruling from a specialist costs court provides several instructive takeaways for practitioners, particularly around high-value costs litigation:
1. Assessment costs can be substantial
Of the total ordered sum, £212,266.20 related solely to the assessment proceedings a reminder that in cases exceeding £75,000 (i.e., outside the Provisional Assessment scheme), the cost of arguing over costs can be significant.
Insight: Engaging in prolonged costs disputes without making early or protective offers can dramatically increase exposure. Timely settlement strategies remain critical.
2. Indemnity basis: A lower burden for receiving parties
The court had previously ruled that the substantive legal costs would be assessed on the indemnity basis, meaning Ms Rooney’s team only needed to show that costs were reasonable, not proportionate.
However, the costs of the assessment proceedings themselves were still subject to both tests – reasonableness and proportionality.
Insight: Different elements of a case may attract different bases of assessment. Understanding the distinctions can materially affect recovery.
3. Document time heavily scrutinised
Ms Rooney’s legal team claimed over 800 hours on document time in the assessment proceedings. Yet only a little more than half of that was allowed. As these were costs of the assessment, they were judged on both reasonableness and proportionality.
While the distinction between summary and detailed assessment is often technical, it’s worth clarifying. Summary assessment typically applies to costs at the end of short trials or interim hearings. In contrast, the Provisional Assessment scheme is a middle step (which keeps assessment costs capped for smaller Bills) and used for Bills under £75,000. This case, however, involved a full detailed assessment, reflecting both the scale and complexity of the underlying costs at stake.
Insight: Excessive or poorly evidenced document review time continues to be an area where the court trims costs sharply. Ensure time is properly recorded and justified.
4. Interest adds up – early payments help
Of the £1.19 million allowed against the substantive costs, £40,000 represented interest.
Insight for Paying Parties: Make early and substantial interim payments where possible to limit accumulating interest. In drawn-out litigation, this can prevent a significant increase in final liability.
5. Misconduct argument fails but sparks debate
A novel costs argument emerged over Ms Rooney’s costs budget, which had only included proportionate incurred costs rather than the full incurred costs to that point. This drew criticism from the Senior Costs Judge for lack of transparency – but ultimately, it was not found to amount to misconduct, and the ruling was upheld on appeal.
Insight: While presenting only proportionate incurred costs may pass judicial scrutiny, clarity and openness in budgeting remain essential to avoid criticism or tactical disadvantage.
Final Thoughts
This decision is a high-profile reminder that costs litigation is a legal battleground in its own right. For parties involved in substantial claims, early strategy, disciplined budgeting, and proactive payment planning are vital.
As this case shows – sometimes the battle over legal fees can be as fiercely fought as the claim itself.
And of course, a final reminder that even with a favourable costs order, you can’t get blood from a stone. Enforceability matters.
