Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney

Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney

The Judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the Defendant's solicitors could have reasonably assumed the Claimant's incurred costs were prepared on the same 'reasonable and proportionate' basis as their own, and that their lack of transparency, while an error of judgment, did not cross the threshold into unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR 44.11. The appeal court should defer to the evaluative judgment of the experienced Costs Judge in the absence of clear error.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Rebekah Vardy; Respondent/defendant: Coleen Rooney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Assessment Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Misconduct in Litigation, CPR 44.11 Applications, Transparency in Costs Budgeting
Civil Procedure Costs Costs Assessment Misconduct in Litigation CPR 44.11 Applications Transparency in Costs Budgeting

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rebekah Vardy

Claimant/appellant

Coleen Rooney

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Costs Assessment Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's solicitors acted improperly or unreasonably under CPR 44.11 by failing to clarify the basis of incurred costs in Precedent H and making critical submissions about the Claimant's costs
  2. 2 Whether the Judge erred in finding that the Defendant's solicitors could have assumed the Claimant's costs were prepared on the same basis
  3. 3 Whether lack of transparency amounted to misconduct warranting sanction

Ratio Decidendi

The Judge was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the Defendant's solicitors could have reasonably assumed the Claimant's incurred costs were prepared on the same 'reasonable and proportionate' basis as their own, and that their lack of transparency, while an error of judgment, did not cross the threshold into unreasonable or improper conduct under CPR 44.11. The appeal court should defer to the evaluative judgment of the experienced Costs Judge in the absence of clear error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed