3 weeks ago
11
Rebekah Vardy has launched an entreaty bid against a caller ruling connected Coleen Rooney's ineligible costs, successful the latest improvement of the alleged Wagatha Christie battle.
Lawyers for the 2 women returned to the High Court past period successful a quality implicit ineligible costs claimed by Mrs Rooney, 90% of which Mrs Vardy had been ordered to wage successful an earlier ruling.
In a three-day proceeding successful aboriginal October, lawyers for Mrs Vardy argued the sum of Mrs Rooney's costs should beryllium reduced owed to what they said was "serious misconduct" by Mrs Rooney's ineligible team.
But Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker recovered "on equilibrium and, I person to say, lone just" that Mrs Rooney's ineligible squad had not committed wrongdoing.
Therefore, helium said, it was "not an due case" to trim the magnitude of wealth that Mrs Vardy should pay.
New tribunal documents amusement that Mrs Vardy has present launched an entreaty bid, which her lawyers Kingsley Napley confirmed to the PA quality bureau related to the misconduct ruling.
BBC News has asked Mrs Rooney's ineligible representatives for remark connected Mrs Vardy's petition to appeal.
Mrs Vardy, the woman of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, mislaid the archetypal Wagatha Christie tribunal conflict successful 2022.
She had mounted the ineligible enactment aft Mrs Rooney, the woman of Manchester United striker Wayne, publically accused Mrs Vardy of leaking backstage accusation astir her to the press.
Mrs Vardy sued her for libel, but Mrs Justice Steyn recovered successful July 2022 that the allegation was "substantially true".
The justice aboriginal ordered Mrs Vardy to wage 90% of Mrs Rooney's costs, including an archetypal outgo of £800,000.
The erstwhile proceeding successful London was told that Mrs Rooney's claimed ineligible measure - £1,833,906.89 - was much than 3 times her "agreed costs fund of £540,779.07".
Mrs Vardy's lawyer Jamie Carpenter KC argued that was "disproportionate".
He claimed that Mrs Rooney's ineligible squad had committed misconduct by understating immoderate of her costs truthful she could "use the evident quality successful incurred costs thereby created to onslaught the different party's costs", which was "knowingly misleading".
Robin Dunne, for Mrs Rooney, said that "there has been nary misconduct" and that it was "illogical to accidental that we misled anyone".
He added that the statement that the magnitude owed should beryllium reduced was "misconceived" and that the fund was "not designed to beryllium an close oregon binding representation" of her wide ineligible costs.
Judge Gordon-Saker ruled that portion determination was a "failure to beryllium transparent", it was not "sufficiently unreasonable oregon improper" to represent misconduct.
He ordered Mrs Vardy to wage Mrs Rooney a further £100,000 up of the afloat magnitude owed being decided astatine a aboriginal date.
English (US)