Rof libel litigators Rooney v Vardy?- who will win?

What it says on the tin. Who will win? On the outside I hope Colleen wins.

There was that preliminary issue finding that bizarrely said that Colleen's posting actually referred to Vardy herself (rather than just someone managing her account) which should in theory make it easier for Vardy to win.

Even so, her whole case about the 'lost' data and messages is clearly a load of complete nonsense, so you would hope the Judge brands her as a completely unreliable witness and kicks her case out.

Even if Vardy wins, her damages are likely to be nominal.

I know nothing about libel law but I think it would be really worrying if Vardy won. From the perspective of free speech and basic fairness, how can it possibly be libellous for Rooney to correctly point out that leaks to the press about her private life, from which someone has profited at the expense of her privacy and quality of life, could be traced back to one account. I know the preliminary issue ruling means this isn’t really this issue at trial but still it is the bigger picture. Rooney really ought to have appealed that preliminary decision, which seems just obviously wrong.

Even within the parameters set by the preliminary issue ruling - it would seem hugely unjust for the court not to find that Vardy authorised the leaks by her agent, when Vardy’s arguments on this are facilitated by her own side’s apparent destruction of evidence.   Inferences should be drawn against Vardy.  Especially as she ought to be able to produce exculpatory evidence despite the ‘accidents’: eg by obtaining a third party order for disclosure of the agent’s bank accounts which should show payments from the sun if vardy’s story is correct. And when, taking a step back, it just makes no sense for the agent to have gone off on a frolic of her own on this one.

not sure about who will win in the court judgement but Vardy has lost massively in public opinion.

 

Why on earth did she take it to court?

Is the balance of proof in libel cases that what CR has written is substantially true or more than likely true? I think CR have got it over the line in evidence so far and agree the loss by claimant of substantial amount of evidence without reasonable explanation is corroborative evidence in itself of the truth of CR’s statement. Odd cross examination last week by HT of CR asking her to summarise the evidence on a couple of occasions ie not just that question but the whole issue.  It’s not for her to give a summary of what her evidence has been so far. Yes I agree Vardy already lost as has the agent. 

My understanding is that Rooney has to show that the statement was “substantially true”. In this case, given the preliminary issue ruling, that means not just that the agent did it but that the agent did it within the scope of her agency, ie so that the agent’s act can be attributed to Vardy on agency principles. And this has to be shown to the civil standard, ie more likely than not. 

I know nothing about litigation but reckon Vardy will win with 1 pound damages or something ridiculous. I think Coleen should win though. 

Rooney, not least because...

There was that preliminary issue finding that bizarrely said that Colleen's posting actually referred to Vardy herself (rather than just someone managing her account) which should in theory make it easier for Vardy to win.

...surely that's still open for appeal, it was a bonkers ruling that meant a statement that is true in every possible sense of the word was potentially untrue.

I think that Rooney a have adequately proven through Vardy and watt’s WhatsApp correspondence that is it highly likely that if  it was watt who leaked the stories, it was with Vardy’s knowledge, approval and probably on direction/ for her financial benefit. 
I trust that the judge will give her the hairdryer treatment over the lost evidence and withdrawal of the witness. 
costs will be interesting given colleen’s multiple attempts to settle. If vardy was acting on advice rather than ignoring it, Kingsley Napley et al should hang their heads in shame

 

 

 

(also - the papers have a story which will surely go to press soon which proves that Vardy has perjured herself in relation to her statements on the Danny drinkwater story. Not sure why it didn’t run last weekend as there’s no jury / she’s not the defendant)

I imagine the remit of the agent was a bit woolly but it was certainly to pass on juicy gossip generally and try to generate ££, so if Vardy tells her some she can reasonably be assumed to be instructing the agent to do as she will with it, even if there's no express instruction re a given bit of gossip.  Or something like that.

Interesting to hear the legal perspectives. I was hopeful Vardy wouldn’t be able to get away with her various dog ate my homework excuses for losing evidence. As others have noted on other threads, wouldn’t it set an unhelpful precedent for other cases? Any evidence you don’t like? Maybe it will fall in the sea!

Based on the live evidence I have seen reported, there is something very very wrong with our legal system if Rooney doesn't win.

Even a win for Vardy with £1 damages would be a grave injustice.

I know nothing of these things. My hope is a Vardy win, with an award £1 damages. But also a finding that unreasonable conduct in the litigation results in adverse costs against Vardy of £100k+

As a non-lawyer, can I ask, will the judge have been annoyed by Jamie Vardy giving a statement on the steps of the court but not giving evidence? 
I would have thought she would take that as disrespectful grandstanding, but maybe she won’t care at all?

IMO the Judge is likely to ignore it and attach no weight or credibility to it at all. It does highlight the fact there is another witness who should have been available to corroborate RV account and wasn’t. 

Why was caroline wait/watt not there?

Also surely the press themselves (industry insiders) know who did it and I assume this has contributed to the reporting. 
 

 

She claimed to be too ill 

judge is a woman incidentally. I hope she absolutely lays into both of them and celeb culture

will the judge have been annoyed by Jamie Vardy giving a statement on the steps of the court but not giving evidence? 

Can’t draw an adverse inference from not calling a witness. Can however treat the evidence to which the witness could have spoken with less weight because there is nobody swearing to it in court.