EXCLUSIVE: Rebekah Vardy’s company is £36k in debt – as she faces another financial blow after paying £10.5k towards Coleen Rooney’s legal costs
- The Dancing On Ice star owns BKYV Media Ltd, which is £36,046 in debt and has assets of just £6,856
- Rebekah also has to pay rival WAG Coleen £10,500 towards her legal fees in the latter’s latest victory in bitter court battle
- It’s a further blow to the DOI star’s long-running £1million libel suit against Coleen, who last week claimed a 2-1 victory in the latest round of their fight
- A judge rejected Rebekah’s bid to remove substantial parts of Coleen’s defence relating to her rival’s dealings with The Sun and its column The Secret Wag
Rebekah Vardy has suffered another financial blow amid her expensive legal battle with WAG rival Coleen Rooney.
The 39-year-old Dancing On Ice owns BKYV Media Ltd, which is £36,046 in debt.
Financial records for the company – which is co-owned with Rebekah’s husband Jamie – also show that the business only has assets of £6,856.
Ouch: Rebekah Vardy’s company is currently £36,000 in debt – as she faces another financial blow after being ordered to pay £10, 500 towards Coleen Rooney’s legal costs
The company, which was launched in 2016, also found itself in the red for the last financial year, with debts of £22,151 against assets of only £10,755.
MailOnline has contacted Rebekah’s representatives for comment.
The company’s financial difficulties come after Rebekah was ordered to pay £10,500 towards her Wagatha Christie rival Coleen’s legal fees in their High Court battle.
It’s a further blow to the DOI star’s long-running £1million libel suit against Coleen, who last week claimed a 2-1 victory in the latest round of their fight after a judge rejected Rebekah’s bid to remove substantial parts of Coleen’s defense relating to her rival’s dealings with The Sun newspaper and its column The Secret Wag.
Coleen’s glee: Coleen Rooney (above) has scored another Wagatha Christie victory as Rebekah Vardy has been ordered to pay £10,500 towards her legal fees in their High Court battle
Judge Mrs Justice Steyn ruled that such dealings could be a relevant part of her defence of libel action brought by Rebekah following the leaking of Coleen’s private Instagram posts to The Sun in 2019, which she denies.
Coleen’s legal team compared the win to a ‘2-1 victory in the semi-final’ and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn.
A source said: ‘Coleen’s legal team will present further evidence concerning Rebekah Vardy’s dealing with The Sun and links with The Secret WAG.
‘There are lot of people with knowledge of her long term relationship with the newspaper and how it worked.
‘Last week’s ruling could open a Pandora’s Box for Rebekah.’
However, Charlotte Harris of law firm Kingsley Napley, representing Rebekah, said: ‘The Judge has struck out about 10 pages of material from Mrs Rooney’s defence as irrelevant or a waste of court time.
‘Mrs Rooney has to re-plead the part of her public interest defence which was said by the Judge to be ‘impermissible’.
‘This is now Mrs Rooney’s third attempt at a putting forward a defence to Mrs Vardy’s libel claim. She has been ordered to cover the costs of this exercise and Mrs Vardy’s costs of amending her Reply.
‘The Judge made three costs orders – two in favour of Mrs Vardy and one in favour of Mrs Rooney for £10,500.
Coleen’s legal team compared the win to a ‘2-1 victory in the semi-final’ and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn (pictured in 2016)
‘Although the Judge did not allow the Summary judgement application, she said in her judgement that there was ‘some force’ in Mrs Vardy’s case that there are very significant differences between the TV Decisions Articles and the post on which it is supposed to be based.
‘This goes to the heart of the case.
‘Mrs Vardy is not the Secret Wag. The Judge has made clear that the identity of the Secret Wag does not go to the core issues and has reserved the ability to cut out or limit this issue in the future.
‘Mrs Vardy is completely confident that she will succeed at trial.’
Last week’s judgement was a pre-trial procedural decision on which parts of the defence presented by Coleen will be included in the case if it goes to a full libel trial at the High Court, expected to be in September.
The long-running feud between the high-profile WAGS erupted after Coleen revealed that she had set a trap to see who was responsible for the leaks, which earned her the nickname Wagatha Christie.
Coleen famously wrote: ‘I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them. It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.’
Soon after, Rebekah took to social media to deny being the person who had leaked the stories to the press, after Coleen’s post went viral.
The long-running feud between the high-profile WAGS erupted after Coleen revealed that she had set a trap to see who was responsible for the leaks, which earned her the nickname Wagatha Christie
Rebekah’s team launched a bid last month to have large parts of Coleen’s defence in the ongoing libel case struck out.
Rebekah’s barrister Hugh Tomlinson QC told Mrs Justice Steyn: ‘The purpose of this application is to clear away a mass of irrelevant and peripheral material in order to save time and costs and focus on the main issues in the case.’
But Rebekah’s move was branded a ‘tactical exercise’ to avoid having to disclose matters which will prove Coleen’s case is correct, according to her own lawyer David Sherborne.
‘Wagatha Christie’ trial could cost £1million
The Wagatha Christie libel trial could last nearly two weeks and cost almost £1m, the High Court heard.
Dashing any hopes of a last-minute settlement between the warring Wags, Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing Rebekah Vardy in her £1.5m lawsuit against Coleen Rooney, said: ‘There can be no doubt that it will go to trial.’
He said that his own side’s costs alone for a nine-day trial would be £475,000.
Mr Tomlinson, who has launched an application to have large sections of Coleen’s defence ‘struck out’ from the case, said it could almost slash the trial costs in half.
He said ‘assuming a five-day trial with the material taken out, we estimate our costs at £273,000. I’m not suggesting these figures are set in stone, they are provided in good faith.’
Mr Tomlinson said sections of the defence around Mrs Vardy’s relationship with The Sun newspaper, including her alleged but denied authorship of ‘The Secret Wag’ column, are not relevant to the trial.
‘Much of it is so far away from the issues as to be patently irrelevant,’ he told the court.
Referring to one part of Mrs Rooney’s defence, he added: ‘There was almost nothing about leaking private information about anyone to the press, let alone the defendant’s family and friends.’
Mr Tomlinson highlighted that both women have a public profile and their own relationships with the media.
Mr Tomlinson, referring to sections of Coleen’s defence which allege that Rebekah was a ‘close friend’ of Sun journalist Simon Boyle, said: ‘What has happened in this case is that the defendant has gone through the claimant’s appearances in the newspapers, put two and two together and made seven.’
‘It’s effectively saying that ‘she’s had an interview with Simon Boyle, so he’s a close friend of yours’.
Coleen’s team told the court that the sections which Rebekah was seeking to remove are ‘plainly relevant and proportionate’ and the argument that leaving them in will substantially increase the costs of the trial is ‘seriously overstated and bears no real scrutiny’.
They added: ‘Another factor that should be borne in mind is that the Claimant [Rebekah] is seeking to remove what are, no doubt, paragraphs that [she] finds uncomfortable and embarrassing. ‘
The key issue in Rebekah’s pre-trial application to the court concerned the so-called ‘TV decisions post’ which Coleen put out on Instagram and claims she blocked all her other followers apart from Rebekah from viewing.
In the post, Coleen posted a selfie with text reading ‘easing my way back into work!! TV decisions today’ in September 2019.
A story reporting her desire to revive her TV career appeared on The Sun’s website three days later, Mrs Rooney claims.
However, Mrs Rooney said she ‘invented’ the story as part of her investigation to discover the source of the leaks and had no intention of entering into more television work.
But the judge rejected the application for summary judgement, saying: ‘It is one of many factual issues to be resolved at trial in determining whether the truth defence is made out.
It seems highly unlikely that resolution of this issue would assist the parties to settle the claim.’
She added: ‘While there is some force in the claimant’s submission that there are significant differences between the TV Decisions Articles and the Post from which they are alleged to derive, the question whether the claimant disclosed the TV Decisions Post to The Sun is one that can only properly be answered having regard to all the evidence at trial. ‘
Coleen’s solicitors, Brabners, put out an immediate statement headed: ‘Rebekah Vardy’s summary judgment application fails’
They added: ‘Rebekah Vardy’s application for summary judgment was dismissed by Mrs Justice Steyn DBE in a judgment handed down this morning in the ongoing Vardy v Rooney libel litigation.
‘The court rejected those applications by Mrs Vardy, with the exception of two paragraphs and parts of another one relating to allegations of Ms Vardy’s self-promotion in the press.
‘A key part of the defence that Mrs Vardy failed to strike out is Mrs Rooney’s allegation that Ms Vardy was a primary source for the ‘Secret Wag’ column in The Sun.’
Hitting back: Coleen’s legal team compared the win to a ‘2-1 victory in the semi-final’ and are increasingly confident going into the next part of the High Court battle in the autumn (pictured in 2018)
‘The high-profile libel claim brought by Ms Vardy is over a post on social media that alleged she had secretly informed The Sun newspaper of Ms Rooney’s private posts and stories from Instagram.’
She said: ‘The claimant’s engagement on social media with these journalists is relevant in considering the defendant’s case that she had an exceptionally close relationship with them, which I have accepted is one of the building blocks on which the defendant seeks to build her defence of truth.’
Mrs Justice Steyn threw out parts of Mrs Rooney’s defence but kept some aspects that Mrs Vardy had applied to strike out.
‘Wagatha Christie’ trial could cost £1million
The Wagatha Christie libel trial could last nearly two weeks and cost almost £1m, the High Court heard.
Dashing any hopes of a last-minute settlement between the warring Wags, Hugh Tomlinson QC, representing Rebekah Vardy in her £1.5m lawsuit against Coleen Rooney, said: ‘There can be no doubt that it will go to trial.’
He said that his own side’s costs alone for a nine-day trial would be £475,000.
Mr Tomlinson, who has launched an application to have large sections of Coleen’s defence ‘struck out’ from the case, said it could almost slash the trial costs in half.
He said ‘assuming a five-day trial with the material taken out, we estimate our costs at £273,000. I’m not suggesting these figures are set in stone, they are provided in good faith.’
Mr Tomlinson said sections of the defence around Mrs Vardy’s relationship with The Sun newspaper, including her alleged but denied authorship of ‘The Secret Wag’ column, are not relevant to the trial.
‘Much of it is so far away from the issues as to be patently irrelevant,’ he told the court.
Referring to one part of Mrs Rooney’s defence, he added: ‘There was almost nothing about leaking private information about anyone to the press, let alone the defendant’s family and friends.’
Mr Tomlinson highlighted that both women have a public profile and their own relationships with the media.
Mr Tomlinson, referring to sections of Coleen’s defence which allege that Rebekah was a ‘close friend’ of Sun journalist Simon Boyle, said: ‘What has happened in this case is that the defendant has gone through the claimant’s appearances in the newspapers, put two and two together and made seven.’
‘It’s effectively saying that ‘she’s had an interview with Simon Boyle, so he’s a close friend of yours’.
The judge dismissed a claim by Mrs Rooney that her fellow footballer’s wife showed ‘publicity-seeking behaviour’ when sitting behind Mrs Rooney in someone else’s seat at the 2016 Euros.
Mrs Justice Steyn found that even assuming the allegation was true, it would still not help Mrs Rooney’s case.
She said: ‘The fact that a person seeks media coverage of their own attendance at a football match does not make it more probable that they would disclose private information about another person to the press.’
Another section concerned Rebekah’s so-called ‘campaign of self-promotion’ and outlined alleged dealings between her and paparazzi agencies.
It was claimed that in June 2018, during the World Cup, Rebekah ‘orchestrated’ a photograph of her with other WAGS Millie Savage, Gemma Acton, Megan Davison, Annabel Peyton, Fern Hawkins, Shannon Horlock, Annie Kilner, and Lucia Loi outside a restaurant in St Petersburg which appeared in The Sun.
Another section claimed that Rebekah was accused by former Girls Aloud star Sarah Harding of taking ‘intrusive photographs’ or her at the National Television Awards ceremony in 2018.
The judge said the argument was irrelevant, adding ‘it would be a waste of time and resources’ for the claim to continue.
Mrs Justice Steyn also threw out an allegation that Mrs Vardy was leaking about the libel case itself to The Sun.
She said: ‘While this is an allegation of leaking confidential information to The Sun, the nature of it is very different to what was alleged in the post.
‘Notably, the defendant has pleaded it in support of the contention that there is a close relationship between the claimant and The Sun, rather than as an instance of the claimant disclosing another person’s private information.’
The judge further dismissed part of Mrs Rooney’s defence about how Mrs Vardy had written a statement for the press regulator IPSO after a complaint was made about The Sun.
She later dismissed Mrs Vardy’s bid for summary judgment – a legal step which would see that part of the case resolved in the claimant’s favour – in relation to Mrs Rooney’s claim that Mrs Vardy leaked a story to The Sun about her returning to TV presenting.
‘The court also refused Mrs Vardy’s application to strike out Mrs Rooney’s public interest defence.
‘In the same application, Mrs Vardy had also sought to limit what documents and information she will be required to disclose by applying to strike out twelve paragraphs of Mrs Rooney’s defence.
Source: Read Full Article