Which Wag Will Win?

[Lootman]

Difficult to tell, but Rooney's reveal said "its......Rebekah Vardy's account" so not necessarily directly accusative of Vardy herself.

Yes but that is a fairly clear implication and might be deemed sufficient to represent libel, unless CR can prove it is true.
So RV could win if the court does not believe that it was RV's account but merely the account of someone connected to RV in some way.

Hmm... if RV's account was registered in her name (one must assume this was done by her or at her instruction) AND previous posts there are written in the first person and appear to be from her AND there is no indication that the account was hijacked, I think she is on a big ££loser (but Dom Pérignons all round for her lawyers)

But it raises the question that if someone starts using your account, can you be held liable for that subsequent content?

CR has the burden of proof here and yet most of the evidence offered that I have seen is circumstantial or inferential.

[mike]

Difficult to tell, but Rooney's reveal said "its......Rebekah Vardy's account" so not necessarily directly accusative of Vardy herself.

Yes but that is a fairly clear implication and might be deemed sufficient to represent libel, unless CR can prove it is true.
So RV could win if the court does not believe that it was RV's account but merely the account of someone connected to RV in some way.

Hmm... if RV's account was registered in her name (one must assume this was done by her or at her instruction) AND previous posts there are written in the first person and appear to be from her AND there is no indication that the account was hijacked, I think she is on a big ££loser (but Dom Pérignons all round for her lawyers)

But it raises the question that if someone starts using your account, can you be held liable for that subsequent content?

CR has the burden of proof here and yet most of the evidence offered that I have seen is circumstantial or inferential.

We might very well find out - seems they are both at it !

Joe McLoughlin, Coleen Rooney’s brother, has said that he was “shocked” when he saw his sister’s ‘Wagatha Christie’ post.

He was called by Ms Rooney and she asked him to post the message on her public Instagram and Facebook. She also wanted help making the text she had written into a graphic for posting on social media.

When he saw what she wanted to post, Mr McLoughlin said: “It was a shock to me.”

He said he questioned her on what had been going on. She replied “I’ll have to tell you about,” he told the court. “But can you just post them posts, so I did,” he added.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rebekah-vardy-coleen-rooney-court-trial-updates-b2079758.html#post-674148

[pje16]

Has anyone noticed the look on Wayne's face when approaching the court entrance
can't say I've ever seen anyone look so miffed, can't say I blame him either

[stockton]

Mr. Justice Warby does seem to have made a very unfortunate intervention by suggesting that a statement which is entirely accurate can be libellous.

[Clitheroekid]

I can see it being one of those cases where RV `wins', but is awarded £1 damages and gets no order for costs, so she has to pay her own £1m+ legal bill.

I do hope so

[stockton]

That would seem to me to be a very unsatisfactory outcome. A manifestly wronged party being landed with £1 mn. costs is hardly justice.

[pje16]

Well they have more money than sense

[stockton]

It is very odd that people equate the two sides - court cases are usually initiated by only one party.

[Clitheroekid]

That would seem to me to be a very unsatisfactory outcome. A manifestly wronged party being landed with £1 mn. costs is hardly justice.

But she hasn't been `manifestly wronged'. It's quite clear that her own behaviour has been at least as bad as that of Rooney.

The whole point of defamation proceedings is to establish that the claimant's good character has been wrongly impugned, but if the claimant's own character is hardly a shining example in the first place they don't deserve to receive huge amounts in compensation.

The court's decision not to award costs in such cases is effectively saying to the claimant that they shouldn't have wasted everyone's time and money.

[pje16]

Let's get real here
Is saying someone posted/leaked something on social media REALLY worth a 7 figure sum?
The Snowflake term comes to mind

[stockton]

That would seem to me to be a very unsatisfactory outcome. A manifestly wronged party being landed with £1 mn. costs is hardly justice.

But she hasn't been `manifestly wronged'. It's quite clear that her own behaviour has been at least as bad as that of Rooney.

I was assuming that the person who had been "manifestly wronged" was Rooney who, I think we have been told, has faced substantial costs.
It is interesting that even you use the phrase "as bad as that of Rooney", when, as far as I can see, Rooneys behaviour has been beyond reproach.

[Hallucigenia]

Let's get real here
Is saying someone posted/leaked something on social media REALLY worth a 7 figure sum?
The Snowflake term comes to mind

Only a snowflake would get upset enough about this stuff to post on it....

And reputation has always been valuable to people, never more so in the modern world where social media is big business. To take one example from the football world, Cristiano Ronaldo is estimated to get $1.6m for every sponsored post he does on Instagram.

[Clitheroekid]

And the winner is ...

Coleen Rooney! Rightly so.

[pje16]

Who cares
they are both attention seeking wanabees

[Laughton]

Couldn't vote at the outset because I had no idea what it was all about but have taken the trouble to read the judgement as it popped up on my screen today - just so I could finally work out what was supposed to have happened to whom.

I guess it's given the "celebrity" followers something to occupy themselves with for the past few months and, even though the costs must be horrendous, I guess Mr & Mrs Vardy can afford it.

[WrenChasen]

I haven't really been following the case, but from what little I've read it does seem to be the right outcome.

I wonder how they'd have settled their dispute if they weren't married to a couple of blokes who are paid ridiculous amounts of money simply because they can kick a ball around?

[Rhyd6]

Just goes to show that money doesn't buy you class. As my mum used to say "common as muck the pair of them".

R6

[stewamax]

Just goes to show that money doesn't buy you class. As my mum used to say "common as muck the pair of them".

Eh lad, but where there's muck there's brass.

[CliffEdge]

Why are they all so ugly?

[swill453]

This took up the first 7 minutes of the main BBC news last night. WTF?

Scott.