Vardy v Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB) (10 April 2025)

Vardy v Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB) (10 April 2025)

The judge below was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the Defendant's solicitors could have reasonably assumed the Claimant's Precedent H incurred costs figures were prepared on the same 'reasonable and proportionate' basis as their own, and that any lack of transparency did not cross the threshold into unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR 44.11. The appellate court should defer to the evaluative judgment of the experienced costs judge, and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 851 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Rebekah Vardy; Respondent/defendant: Coleen Rooney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs/misconduct) / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
CPR 44.11, Costs Budgeting, Misconduct of Legal Representatives, Indemnity Costs, Transparency in Costs Submissions
Civil Procedure Costs CPR 44.11 Costs Budgeting Misconduct of Legal Representatives Indemnity Costs Transparency in Costs Submissions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rebekah Vardy

Claimant/appellant

Coleen Rooney

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs/misconduct) / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's solicitors acted improperly or unreasonably under CPR 44.11 by failing to disclose that their Precedent H incurred costs figures were not actual incurred costs but reduced for reasonableness and proportionality
  2. 2 Whether the judge below erred in finding that the Defendant's solicitors could have believed the Claimant had also understated incurred costs
  3. 3 Whether lack of transparency in submissions amounted to misconduct under CPR 44.11

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the Defendant's solicitors could have reasonably assumed the Claimant's Precedent H incurred costs figures were prepared on the same 'reasonable and proportionate' basis as their own, and that any lack of transparency did not cross the threshold into unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR 44.11. The appellate court should defer to the evaluative judgment of the experienced costs judge, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed