[ad_1]
Rebekah Vardy lost an appeal after demanding that Coleen Rooney’s advocates deliberately underestimated some of their customers’ costs during the ‘Wagatha Christie’ defamation case.
The High profile court case took place afterwards Mrs Rooneywoman of former man UTD goal shooter Wayne RooneyIn 2019, accuse Mrs Vardy on social media for leaking her private information to the press.
Mrs Vardy, wife of Leicester City goal shooter Jamie Vardy, tried to sue Mrs Rooney unsuccessfully in a slander in 2022 It captivated some areas of the public and later dramatized for TV.
The judge ordered Mrs Vardy to pay 90% of Mrs Rooney’s costs, including an initial payment of £ 800,000.
Both women are now in a further dispute about how much Mrs Vardy has to pay in legal costs.
In October last year, a specialist cost of Judge decided Mrs Rooney’s advocates did not commit misconduct After being made by Mrs. Vardy’s legal team was accused of underestimating some of her costs.
Mrs Vardy appealed against the decision last month, while the advocates of Mrs. Rooney claimed that the challenge was ‘wrong’.
In a ruling on Thursday, Judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Cavanagh, rejected the appeal.
He said: “The appeal must fail on the grounds that the judge was entitled to conclude that he came.”
A hearing was told in October Mrs Rooney’s claimed bill – £ 1,833,906,89 – was more than three times her “agreed cost -budget of £ 540,779.07”.
Jamie Carpenter KC, for Mrs Vardy, said it was “disproportionate”, and that the earlier “understatement” of some costs “was improper and unreasonable” and “attacked the cost of the other party”.
However, Judge Andrew Gordon business, senior costs, said that although there was a “failure to be transparent” by the legal team of Mrs. Rooney was, he “found in balance, and I just have to say, just” that they did not commit crimes.
In written submissions for the appeal against the decision last month, Mr. Carpenter said Mrs. Rooney “very essentially underestimating” her costs with about 40% in her budget, known as a “precedent h”, in 2021, and that the amount that Mrs. Vardy has to pay, so should be reduced.
Benjamin Williams KC, for Mrs Rooney, said in his written submissions that her budget was “properly and correctly completed” and that there was “no actable case” of misconduct.
In a separate decision on Thursday, Mrs. Vardy largely loses a bid for access to more documents related to costs.
Her lawyers asked the court in February to order Mrs Rooney’s team to hand over ‘privileged’ documents, details about her claim for VAT, and further information on custodians between Mrs Rooney and her lawyers.
Mrs Rooney’s advocates resisted the bid and described it as a ‘fishing expedition’.
Read more from Sky News:
Inside rocket defense base that protects Europe
Striking bin -workers insist on accepting transaction
More than 1,000 cabinet offices should almost
Use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
From 2022: The Wagatha Christie hear – Explain
The senior cost Judge Mark Whalan said on Thursday that he was “not convinced”, the advocates of Mrs. Vardy is allowed to inspect VAT documents or other privileged materials.
But he ruled that they should be allowed to see a re -recorded container between Mrs Rooney and her lawyers.
Judge Whalan has Mrs. Vardy also ordered to pay nearly £ 11,000 of the cost of the application, in which he says he must “realistically” conclude that it is the defendant and not the plaintiff “who was successful.
After the decisions, a spokeswoman for Mrs Vardy said: “In terms of the two statements today, we are satisfactory that the disclosure is obliged in one decision, while our respectfully disappointed that our appeal in the other judgment was not successful.
“Now we just want to go further and look at the future. We will not comment on at the moment. ‘
[ad_2]
Source link
