Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy's Wagatha Christie battle returns to court over legal costs. File Picture: AFP
Coleen Rooney’s high-profile legal battle with Rebekah Vardy is set to return to court over a disputed £1.8 million legal bill.
The 38-year-old star - who is married to former footballer Wayne Rooney - was unsuccessfully sued by Jamie Vardy's wife Rebekah, 42, after she named her Instagram account as the source of leaks to the press and Rebekah was ordered to pay 90 per cent of Coleen’s legal costs - but the bill is being contested over claims it has been inflated by items including fancy dinners and stays in swanky hotels.
A source told The Sun newspaper: "As far as Becky is concerned, they have been trying to pick her pockets because they think they can get away with it.
"They underestimated their costs and are over-billing her. From the costs of experts to legal fees, the figures are ludicrous."
The insider added: "Becky won’t stand for it. She will keep fighting in court until she feels there is a fair outcome."
The case is due back at the High Court in London for a preliminary hearing in Monday, October 07.
Coleen publicly claimed that "Rebekah Vardy's account" was the source behind three fake stories she had posted on her private Instagram page - of which Rebekah was an approved follower - and she was dubbed 'Wagatha Christie' for her social media sleuthing, a reference to the term 'WAGS' which is an acronym used to refer to wives and girlfriends of high-profile sportsmen.
Rebekah sued Coleen for libel, but a judge ruled against her. In the High Court verdict delivered in July 2022, judge Mrs Justice Steyn ruled it was "likely" that Rebekah's then-agent Caroline Watt "undertook the direct act" of passing information on but that her client was aware.
The judge said: "Nonetheless, the evidence clearly shows, in my view, that Mrs Vardy knew of and condoned this behaviour, actively engaging in it by directing Ms Watt to the private Instagram account, sending her screenshots of Mrs Rooney's posts, drawing attention to items of potential interest to the press, and answering additional queries raised by the press via Ms Watt.
"In my judgment, the conclusions that I have reached as to the extent to which the claimant engaged in disclosing to The Sun information to which she only had access as a permitted follower of an Instagram account which she knew, and Mrs Rooney repeatedly asserted, was private, suffice to show the single meaning is substantially true."