Vardy v Rooney
A footballer's wife who had accused another of leaking private stories to a newspaper proved that the accusation was substantially true, and the claimant's libel claim failed.
Facts
Coleen Rooney, the wife of the footballer Wayne Rooney, suspected that someone was leaking stories from her private Instagram account to The Sun newspaper. She restricted access to her stories so that only one account could see them, the account of Rebekah Vardy, the wife of another footballer, and posted false stories to test whether they would appear in the press. When they did, she announced on social media that the leaks had come from Rebekah Vardy's account. Mrs Vardy sued Mrs Rooney for libel.
Legal principle
Steyn J held that Mrs Rooney had proved that her statement was substantially true, under section 2 of the Defamation Act 2013, so the claim failed. The evidence showed that it was likely that Mrs Vardy had knowingly been involved in passing private information from Mrs Rooney's account to The Sun, through her agent. The judge also found that some of Mrs Vardy's evidence was not credible, and that relevant evidence had been deliberately lost, including a phone that fell into the North Sea. The case attracted intense media interest and was known as the Wagatha Christie trial.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11, [2012] 2 AC 273
- Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
