Rebekah Vardy’s attorney fires legal shots at Coleen Rooney during Wagatha Christie’s trial

The wives of two footballers are facing court in an explosive smear case that could lead to millions of pounds in damages and could rage for weeks to come.

Loading video

Video not available

The video will automatically play soon8Cancel

Start playing

Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy arrive in court

Rebekah Vardy’s attorney shot Coleen Rooney claiming she fell in love with the Wagatha Christie moniker on the first day of the defamation hearing.

Coleen, the wife of former England star Wayne Rooney, publicly accused the WAG account of sharing three fake stories about her in October 2019.

They include Rooney, 36, going to Mexico for a “sex selection” procedure, her plans to return to TV, and a flood in her basement.

She posted the stories on a personal Instagram account between August and October of that year, after it became increasingly suspicious that Vardy’s account had leaked the stories to The Sun.

Ms Vardy, 40, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, denies the charges and is suing Ms Rooney for defamation in London’s High Court.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing Ms. Vardy, told the judge Rooney’s post was formulated like a “little killer” and made a stunning revelation: “It was Rebekah Vardy’s account” a “phrase that was put together” very popular today”.

In an apparent argument presented to the trial, which is taking place before Mrs Justice Steyn, Vardy’s lawyers said Rooney’s ‘announcement’ post was “deliberately crafted in a dramatic and sensational style”. and was a “serious attack on Mrs. Vardy”.

He told the court today: “We say this careful investigation was flawed from the start.

“Because anyone knows anything about the workings of social media it is obvious and I’m sure Mrs. Rooney knows something about it too.

“Just because someone has an account doesn’t mean they’re the only ones with access to it.

“Mrs Rooney was later dubbed ‘Wagatha Christie’. Something that she seemed to have become enamored with.

“She copied in her cell phone, we recently discovered, the little pictures people have taken that turned her into Agatha Christie, etc.”

He said that one of the three stories Rooney relies on, about her return to television, “actually has nothing to do with that post that is ‘obvious to anyone'”.

Mr. Tomlinson said the post was about I’m a Celebrity and the article was about getting serious about dancing.

In any event, the same story was repeated in some media multiple times in 2019, he said.

“It is accepted [by Rooney] that the content of the post and the TV decision article do not completely match. They have nothing to do with each other.

“The reality is that there is no indisputable evidence that Mrs Vardy is the person Mrs. Rooney has been concerned about leaking her personal information for many years. Mrs. Rooney has no direct evidence of this.”

He added: “The post was defamatory in nature, which was common from the start.

“We can now proceed on the basis that defamation caused serious harm, so Ms. Vardy is entitled to damages for defamation unless Mrs. rooney can establish a remedy. protection known to the law.”

The trial continued.

Do you have a story to sell? Contact us at webcelebs@mirror.co.uk or call us directly on 0207 29 33033.