There was no dispute that the post on Mrs Rooney’s Twitter, Facebook and public Instagram account, in which she stated that it was Rebecca Vardy’s Instagram account that had leaked details from Mrs Rooney’s personal Instagram account was defamatory. The question of whether there were a series of leaks of information, from Mrs Vardy’s access to Coleen Rooney’s private Instagram account needed to be proven in order for the Court to hold that the Rooney Instagram post was substantially true, a defence in defamation proceedings.
That Defence has been held to prevail.
Whilst the process will cost even Mrs Rooney some estimated £300,00 in unrecoverable legal fees for many of those in the legal profession the parts of the Judgment that are of particular interest relate to Mrs Vardy’s testimony under oath and to her obligations to the Court to disclose all relevant evidence, whether it helps or hinders her.
We routinely advise clients that they must retain and disclose even the most damaging pieces of evidence, even if they severely weaken their case. Not to do so is contempt of court. Equally we advise clients that they must be entirely honest in their statements and in evidence given to the Court or face perjury proceedings. Contempt of Court and perjury are punishable by imprisonment. This duty placed upon all parties to litigation will only be complied with if parties are either entirely honourable or are unwilling to risk the sanction of behaving otherwise.
Would Mrs Justice Steyn impress upon the parties in this case and the public at large the importance of these obligations or are they now only paid lip service to?
Mrs Justice Steyn found Mrs Vardy to be an unreliable witness. Examples from the Judgment include:
“significant parts of Ms Vardy’s evidence were not credible”
“I am compelled to the conclusion that the primary reason Ms Watt [Mrs Vardy’s Agent] was so very reluctant to give evidence, and has suffered adversely from the pressure to do so, was that she knew that to a large extent the evidence in her statements was untrue”.
“I also draw the inference that Ms Vardy chose not to call Ms Watt because she knew that when tested in cross-examination her evidence would be shown to be untrue.”
On the subject of whether Mrs Vardy elected to sit behind Coleen Rooney in order to gain more public attention the Judge held:
“In my judgment, Ms Vardy’s evidence on this matter was not credible.”
A series of findings therefore that one party and a witness of hers had given evidence to the Court that was untrue.
On the issue of disclosure there are again clear findings of a failure to observe those obligations to the Court:
Dropping Ms Watt’s phone in the sea – “the likelihood that the loss Ms Watt describes was accidental is slim.”
Deleted WhatsApp data then disposed of the laptop which experts agreed could have been forensically examined and the data recovered – “In my judgment, it is likely that Ms Vardy deliberately deleted her WhatsApp chat with Ms Watt, and that Ms Watt deliberately dropped her phone in the sea.”
The gap in available messages between Ms Vardy and Ms Watt from 15 October 2019 to 24 July 2020 – “In my judgment, it is probable that Ms Vardy deleted these messages.”
We await the decision on the consequences for these actions. Those in favour of justice will hope that there is one beyond the costs of the proceedings and the reputational damage sustained.
