Rebekah Vardy has revealed that the stress caused by Coleen Rooney’s claim she was leaking stories to the press could have sent her into premature labour, as she took another swipe at the libel trial’s judge.
Speaking in an extraordinary interview broadcast on TalkTV tonight entitled ‘Rebekah Vardy: Coleen and Me’, Mrs Vardy said that she felt the High Court judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, did not understand the case.
She spoke extensively about the impact that the trial, and the lead-up to it, had on her family.
The mother-of-five was pregnant with her youngest daughter when Mrs Rooney first accused her of leaking stories about to The Sun in her famous ‘Wagatha’ post on social media ending ‘It’s……….Rebekah Vardy’s account’.
Speaking to TalkTV’s Kate McCann, Mrs Vardy said she felt as though she ‘didn’t even want to be here anymore’, and isolated herself from the public.
Rebekah Vardy has revealed that the stress caused my Coleen Rooney’s claim she was leaking stories to the press could have sent her into premature labour
Mrs Vardy said that she withdrew from the public gaze due to the stress she felt when being abused both in the street and online.
This stress, she was told by her doctor, could have sent her into premature labour.
‘I was trying to be mum to the four children that were here and to protect my baby as well,’ she said. ‘There was a really high probably I was going to go into preterm labour.
‘It was the worst feeling,’ she added.
Yesterday, in an interview with The Sun, Mrs Vardy said was enjoying a trip to Dubai when she saw that Mrs Rooney had taken to social media to accuse her of leaking stories to The Sun following her own months-long ‘sting operation’.
She said that she thought about jumping from the top floor of a shopping mall in Dubai while pregnant after being accused of leaking the stories.
She described it as her ‘lowest point’, anticipating the UK response when she returned to the country.
‘Jamie and I were in a shopping mall at the time buying baby clothes, and I just thought, ‘I don’t want to go through this, I don’t want to live like this’,’ she told The Sun.
‘For a split second, I said to Jamie, ‘I feel like I just want to jump off this top floor’.’
Mrs Vardy said that during this time, her husband, Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, ‘was always fully supportive’.
‘He was 110 per cent behind me,’ she said. ‘He encouraged me, he saw what I went through and knew what I was facing.’
Mrs Vardy said that she withdrew from the public gaze due to the stress she felt when being abused both in the street and online
Mrs Vardy said that she withdrew from the public gaze due to the stress she felt when being abused both in the street and online
The post that accused Rebekah Vardy’s social media account of leaking stories. It sparked a £3million legal battle that Mrs Rooney has won after the judge agreed it was ‘substantially true’ and therefore not libellous
The 40-year-old added: ‘I just wanted normality to resume. I felt for the kids, the ones that were innocent in this.
‘They’re too young to understand how any of this happened. You’ve got to focus on your family and help your kids.’
She added: ‘The kids were driven to school in cars with bin liners on the windows because of the press intrusion, it just went crazy. I was just a normal mum and now I’m a mum being called all sorts of things.’
Mrs Vardy had previously said that she was heavily abused online and in person following the accusation, but this evening added that ‘abuse’ was sent to her children on social media.
‘Social media is a vile platform sometimes,’ she said. ‘People need to be more responsible for what they’re saying to people.’
She also tried to shield her children from hearing the verbal abuse towards her, adding: ‘I had to stop taking the children to football, I didn’t want kids to be subjected to that.’
She said that she supported her 17-year-old daughter Megan throughout the trial, and asked her not to look at the social media coverage.
‘[She was] reading stuff about her mum that she knows is not true,’ Mrs Vardy added.
Mrs Vardy said that she supported her 17-year-old daughter Megan throughout the trial, and asked her not to look at the social media coverage.
Mrs Vardy said that she feels let down by the legal system. Pictured arriving at the Royal Courts of Justice on the fourth day of the high-profile trial against Coleen Rooney
The High Court Wagatha Christie judgment that damned Rebekah Vardy
‘Significant’ parts of Vardy’s evidence ‘not credible’
Mrs Justice Steyn has found that Rebekah Vardy’s evidence in the trial was ‘manifestly inconsistent’ with other evidence on ‘many occasions’.
The judge said: ‘I find that it is, unfortunately, necessary to treat Mrs Vardy’s evidence with very considerable caution.
‘There were many occasions when her evidence was manifestly inconsistent… and others where she was evasive.’
Mrs Justice Steyn continued: ‘Mrs Vardy was generally unwilling to make factual concessions, however implausible her evidence. This inevitably affects my overall view of her credibility, although I have borne in mind that untruthful evidence may be given to mask guilt or to fortify innocence.’
On the ‘Davy Jones’ incident that left Vardy’s agent’s phone at the bottom of the North Sea
Mrs Justice Steyn said ‘In my judgement, 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.’
Rebekah Vardy’s agent and friend said her phone fell into the North Sea while she was filming the Scottish coastline in August 2021.
Mrs Justice Steyn has said the likelihood that the loss of Caroline Watt’s phone was accidental was ‘slim’ and that it was ‘likely’ she deliberately dropped her phone into the sea.
In her judgement, the judge said that on August 4 2021, an order was made for Ms Watt’s phone to be inspected.
She said: ‘The timing is striking…the likelihood that the loss Ms Watt describes was accidental is slim.’
On her agent’s ‘breakdown’
Mrs Justice Steyn said that Rebekah Vardy chose not to call her agent Caroline Watt to give evidence partly because she knew her evidence ‘would be shown to be untrue’.
On whether Vardy leaked to The Sun
The Court found that the Mrs Vardy, ‘together with Ms Watt’, ‘was party to the disclosure to The Sun’.
The judge said: ‘The Court considered it likely that Ms Watt undertook the direct act, in relation to each post, of passing the information to a journalist at The Sun, but found that the Claimant [Mrs Vardy] knew of, condoned and was actively engaged in this process’.
She explained how she told her eldest, ‘in life, some people will like you and some people won’t. You have to concentrate on the people that love you and care for you’, adding ‘if you want to know, come to me and we’ll have that conversation’.
She added: ‘The hardest part for us was dealing with the repercussions of the accusation. It has made us stronger and more as a unit.’
Reflecting on the trial, she said: ‘Do I feel let down? I feel let down by the legal system.
‘I had a judge that didn’t really know the case, and read what was said in the media.’
She told The Sun in an interview: ‘I am extremely sad and disappointed at the decision that the judge has reached.
‘It is not the result that I had expected, nor believe was just. I brought this action to vindicate my reputation and am devastated by the judge’s finding.’
Mrs Vardy was told by a High Court judge that her evidence was ‘evasive and implausible; and was accused of deliberately deleting WhatsApp messages central to the case.
In her ruling, the judge said it was ‘likely’ that Mrs Vardy’s agent at the time, Caroline Watt, ‘undertook the direct act’ of passing the information to The Sun.
But she added: ‘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.
The judge added: ‘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.’
The bombshell verdict from Court 13 of the High Court was handed down remotely online last week by Mrs Justice Steyn just over two months after the trial in May.
Mrs Vardy’s failed libel suit has been branded the most ill-advised in history.
However she still insists she was not the person who leaked the stories about Mrs Rooney to the media.
During the interview with Ms McCann, Mrs Vardy repeatedly said that she did not leak the information to the press.
She recounted the first time that the wives spoke, after Mrs Rooney posted the accusation online.
Mrs Vardy said she asked Mrs Rooney what the post was about.
‘You know what this is’, Mrs Vardy said she was told in reply.
‘I really didn’t know why she’d say that or where it had come from.
‘I was absolutely devastated because I did’t do it.’
‘I went into court telling the truth. There’s some things I’m not proud of, but I never leaked stories about Coleen Rooney.’
Mrs Vardy denied claims that she had orchestrated an image of the two wives at the UEFA EURO 2016 match between England and Wales
Mrs Vardy added that she ‘deeply regretted’ remarks she made about Peter Andre, but insisted she did not ‘leak’ that, but put her name to it.
She also denied claims that she had orchestrated an image of the two wives at the UEFA EURO 2016 match between England and Wales.
‘If I had, I would have said I had,’ she said. ‘I don’t see how you can be accused of setting up a picture, not knowing where you were sitting beforehand.’
She added: ‘I have done set-up pictures, I do do set up pictures. It’s a way of controlling something — you’re doing something that you want to publicise.
‘If you do it, own it, there’s no shame in having your pictures taken, and I’ll probably do it again, there’s no shame in that.’
She added that she wouldn’t apologise for private messages she sent her agent, Caroline Watt, regarding Mrs Rooney.
In one message that was seen by the court during the trial, Ms Vardy is said to have called Mrs Rooney a ‘nasty b***h’.
Speaking this evening, Mrs Vardy said: ‘I’m not going to apologise for a message I sent privately.
‘Yes I do swear, I’m not going to apologise for that, and we say things sometimes in messages that are taken out of context.’
However she extended an olive branch to Mrs Rooney, adding: ‘Maybe one day well get a coffee together’.
Candid: Danielle Lloyd has admitted she found the Wagatha Christie trial ‘traumatic’, after Rebekah Vardy called her a ‘nasty b***h’ in texts given as evidence (right)
Injury: Coleen, 36, was wearing a surgical boot after suffering a fall back in March, and shared an X-ray image of her broken foot via Twitter on Wednesday
Recovery: Coleen Rooney has hit back at WAG rival Rebekah Vardy’s claims she was ‘milking’ her foot injury during their explosive court showdown
Coleen Rooney today hit back at Rebekah Vardy on social media as her friends told MailOnline that her Wagatha Christie trial rival should move on after her High Court humbling.
Mrs Rooney believes ‘everything that needed saying was said’ in the judge’s ruling that humiliated Mrs Vardy last week and left her with a £3million legal bill, in what has been branded one of the worst own goals in British legal history.
Today Coleen also dismissed Rebekah’s suggestion she was ‘milking it’ by wearing a moon boot to court by sharing a shocking X-ray of her foot break sustained after a fall in March. The picture showed her little toe had been shattered.
The 36-year-old, who wore the protective footwear every day during her High Court libel battle with Rebekah, broke her little toe following a fall in March at the Rooneys’ £20million mansion in Cheshire where the couple live with their four sons.
Mrs Rooney was said by friends to ‘be in quite a lot of pain’ and initially had to use crutches.
Her husband, former Manchester United and England striker Wayne, broke his metatarsal just weeks before the 2006 World Cup in Germany but he managed to play in the tournament.
A source said: ‘It was handy for Coleen, Wayne knows all about foot injuries.’
Mrs Rooney has refused to be drawn back into the row after Rebekah’s latest outburst claiming she was ‘let down by the legal system’.
Rebekah, 40, now faces an estimated £3million legal bill over the case after a scathing 75-page judgement left her credibility in tatters. In a five-page interview today, the mother-of-five says the court case left her suffering from ‘PTSD’ and claimed she was ‘slut-shamed’ and ‘bullied’.
Friends of Coleen said there would be no official response from her. ‘She’s won the case, the judge has said all that needs to be said about Rebekah’s version of events and Coleen won and has no interest in being drawn back into the fray,’ one told MailOnline, adding: ‘Coleen feels at the moment that everything that needed saying was said in the judge’s ruling’.
MailOnline can reveal that the case will now return to the High Court on September 12 for a costs hearing – at which trial judge Mrs Justice Steyn is likely to take a dim view at being told by Rebekah following the verdict that she ‘got it wrong’ and felt she was ‘let down by the legal system’.
Costs hearings are convened to work out exactly how big a share of the legal bill the losing party will be saddled with – and whether the costs incurred are reasonable.
Mrs Vardy said that she is ‘not at all’ worried about the legal costs.
There had been speculation that the Vardys may be forced to sell their beloved Portuguese villa to cover the legal bill, but Mrs Vardy said this is ‘categorically not true’.
Looking forward, Mrs Vardy said that she has ‘offers on the table for lots of different things’.
‘I’m taking a breath, looking at all my opportunities and deciding what’s best for me to do,’ she said. ‘I want to do something that inspires me and is meaningful.’
She added: ‘I want to concentrate more on my horses now and my kids and rebuilding all of that lost time I’ve had dealing with the stresses.’
The judge who delivered the SCATHING ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn
Karen Margaret Steyn QC is sworn in as a Justice of the High Court in 2019
In her long legal career she has been engaged in such weighty cases as Guantanamo Bay prisoners, Saudi arms deals – and claims Priti Patel bullied civil servants.
Mrs Justice Steyn found herself in the full glare of the media spotlight for an altogether different reason, when she presided over the Wagatha Christie libel trial.
She was appointed in 2019 and sits in the Queen’s Bench Division – the part of the High Court which deals with defamation, personal injury and breach of contract claims.
She became a dame in the same year.
She was the only one of that year’s High Court intake not to have attended Oxbridge.
Described as ‘formidable and exceptionally intelligent’, she is the daughter of former Law Lord, Lord Steyn.
As well as overseeing the ‘Wagatha Christie’ claim, other prominent cases she has heard include Arron Banks’ libel claim against journalist Carole Cadwalladr and the FDA union’s unsuccessful legal challenge over Boris Johnson’s decision to support Priti Patel following bullying accusations.
The daughter of former Law Lord Lord Steyn, Mrs Justice Steyn covered a variety of cases as a barrister, including a case over the expansion of Heathrow airport.
Those who have attended preliminary hearings have seen hints of frustration in Dame Karen, possibly mirroring a wider disbelief that Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy are spending millions over their dispute
Those who attended preliminary hearings saw hints of frustration in Dame Karen, possibly mirroring a wider disbelief that Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy are spending millions over their dispute.
Dame Karen was born in South Africa but grew up in Britain where she attended Tonbridge Grammar School in Kent and Liverpool University.
She previously said: ‘Before I started my career I certainly had a perception of barristers as all fitting a particular mould, one that I knew I did not fit, and it took a little while for me to appreciate that there is no mould.’