Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mrs Justice Steyn DBE,Mrs Justice Steyn |
| Judgment Date | 14 February 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] EWHC 304 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2020-002028 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
and
[2022] EWHC 304 (QB)
THE HON. Mrs Justice Steyn DBE
Case No: QB-2020-002028
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Hugh Tomlinson QC and Sara Mansoori (instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP) for the Claimant
David Sherborne and Ben Hamer (instructed by Brabners LLP) for the Defendant
Ian Helme (instructed by Bindmans LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 8–9 February 2022
Approved Judgment
I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.
THE HON. Mrs Justice Steyn DBE
A. Introduction
This is a libel claim brought by Mrs Rebekah Vardy (the claimant) against Mrs Coleen Rooney (the defendant). This judgment is given after the hearing of two pre-trial applications issued by the defendant on 13 December 2021 and 2 February 2022 and one application issued by the claimant on 12 January 2022. Both the claimant and the defendant are well-known media and television personalities who are married to former England footballers. Ms Caroline Watt (the respondent) is the agent and a friend of the claimant, and she is the respondent to two applications brought by the defendant.
In summary, the matters for determination are these:
i) The defendant's Part 20/joinder application: An application by the defendant to add to the proceedings a claim brought by her against Ms Watt for misuse of private information and breach of her rights under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The defendant seeks permission pursuant to CPR 20.9 to add this as an ‘additional claim’ or alternatively for an order pursuant to CPR 3.1(2)(h) that, brought as a separate (Part 7) claim, it should be tried on the same occasion as the libel claim, and for the claims to be managed together. In addition, in respect of the latter procedural route, the defendant seeks permission under CPR 31.22 to make use, in her proposed claim against Ms Watt, of the documents disclosed to her in the claim brought by Mrs Vardy.
ii) The defendant's application to amend: The defendant applies for permission to re-re-amend the defence, and consequential permission for the claimant to re-amend her reply.
iii) The claimant's application for further information: The claimant applies for an order requiring the defendant to provide a full and proper response to part of her request for further information.
iv) The defendant's disclosure application: The defendant seeks an order for specific disclosure in relation to various categories, including on a ‘train of enquiry basis’ in respect of one category, along with ancillary orders for the provision of a supplemental list, witness statement and certain documents in unredacted form.
v) The claimant's disclosure application: The claimant seeks an order for disclosure of relevant documents held by six individuals who have been identified by the defendant as ‘custodians’, that is, ‘individuals who have, or may have, custody of disclosable documents’, and some specific disclosure.
vi) The defendant's Instagram application: The defendant seeks an order that the parties make a joint request for information to Instagram.
In addition, as the parties have not yet exchanged witness statements of fact or expert evidence, and in light of my rulings on the above applications, the directions to trial will need to be reconsidered on handing down this judgment.
The evidence filed in support of, or in reply to, the defendant's application dated 13 December 2021 consists of:
i) The defendant's evidence: The second and third witness statements of Mr Paul Lunt, the defendant's solicitor (‘ Lunt 2’, dated 13 December 2021, and ‘ Lunt 3’, dated 26 January 2022) and the first statement of Mr Matt Blackband, the defendant's digital information expert (‘ Blackband 1’, dated 4 February 2022).
ii) The claimant's evidence: The fourth and fifth witness statements of Ms Charlotte Harris, the claimant's solicitor (‘ Harris 4’, dated 17 January 2022 and ‘ Harris 5’, dated 1 February 2022) and the first statement of Mr Ian Henderson, the claimant's digital information expert (‘ Henderson 1’, dated 6 February 2022).
iii) The respondent's evidence: The first witness statement of Ms Tamsin Allen, the respondent's solicitor (‘ Allen 1’, dated 17 January 2022) and the first and second witness statements of Ms Watt (‘ Watt 1’, dated 17 January 2022, and ‘ Watt 2’, dated 24 January 2022).
The evidence filed in support of, or in reply to, the claimant's application dated 12 January 2022 consists of:
i) The claimant's evidence: Ms Harris' third witness statement (‘ Harris 3’, dated 12 January 2022).
ii) The defendant's evidence: Mr Lunt's fourth and fifth witness statements (‘ Lunt 4’, dated 3 February 2022, and ‘ Lunt 5’, dated 4 February 2022).
I have provided a summary of my conclusions at paragraph 202 below.
B. History of the proceedings
The libel claim concerns a post published by the defendant on her Instagram, Twitter and Facebook pages on 9 October 2019 (‘the Post’). The claim was issued on 12 June 2020, and Particulars of Claim were served on the same date.
On 17 September 2020, Nicklin J ordered that meaning be determined as a preliminary issue. Time for service of the Defence was extended until 28 days after the determination of the preliminary issue. However, the defendant chose to serve her Defence on 2 October 2020, prior to the meaning trial.
The trial of the preliminary issue as to meaning took place on 19 November 2020 before Warby J (as he then was). By an order made the following day, he made a declaration as to the meaning of the words complained of in these terms:
“Over a period of years the Claimant had regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower of the Defendant's personal Instagram account by secretly informing The Sun newspaper of the Defendant's private posts and stories, thereby making public without the Defendant's permission a great deal of information about the Defendant, her friends and family which she did not want made public.”
In accordance with directions made by Warby J, Amended Particulars of Claim were served on 23 November 2020, an Amended Defence was served on 30 November 2020, and the Claimant's Reply was served on 8 December 2020. Directions Questionnaires were exchanged on 17 November 2020.
The proceedings were then stayed until 8 February 2021 while a mediation took place. That was unsuccessful.
On 16 March 2021, a costs and case management conference (‘CCMC’) took place before Master Eastman. In accordance with the timetable set by Master Eastman, the claimant issued an application to strike out or obtain summary judgment on some of the allegations in the defendant's Amended Defence on 30 March 2021. I heard that application on 18 June 2021 and gave judgment on 7 July 2021, allowing it in part and dismissing it in greater part. The Re-Amended Defence was served on 16 July 2021 and the Amended Reply was served on 30 July 2021.
A further CCMC took place before Master Eastman on 4 August 2021. Master Eastman gave directions to trial, setting a trial window of 26 April to 20 May 2022. The trial is fixed for 9 May 2022, with a time estimate of 7 days. (It had initially been fixed for 22 April 2022, but was re-fixed on 5 January 2022 to meet the court's availability.)
The claimant served a Part 18 Request for Further Information on 17 September 2021, to which the defendant provided a response on 15 October 2021.
Disclosure took place on 29 October 2021 and inspection on 12 November 2021, in accordance with Master Eastman's directions.
On 13 December 2021 the defendant's solicitors filed the first of the applications which is the subject of this judgment. Amongst other matters, the defendant's application sought an order varying the date for exchange of witness evidence, and the deadlines for expert reports and evidence (to unspecified dates). The witness statements of fact were due to be served on 20 December 2021. On 13 December 2021 the defendant's solicitors sought the claimant's solicitors' agreement to the revision of the then imminent deadline for exchange of witness statements, to the which the claimant's solicitors agreed.
By an order dated 16 December 2021 Nicklin J made directions for the listing of the defendant's application for hearing before me and for the filing and service of evidence, the exchange of skeleton arguments and the filing of hearing and authorities bundles. Nicklin J also required the defendant to serve a copy of the application notice dated 13 December 2021 on the respondent, noting that although CPR 20.5(2) permits an application to join a Part 20 defendant to be made without notice, the better course was for the respondent to be put on notice because otherwise there would be a risk of an application to set aside any order made without notice causing disruption and delay.
On 12 January 2022, the claimant's application notice was filed and Mr Justice Nicklin directed that it would be heard at the hearing listed on 8–9 February 2022. The defendant filed a further application on 2 February 2022, which has been heard at the same time.
C. The defendant's Part 20/joinder application
The rules, practice direction and pre-action protocol
The purpose of Part 20 is to serve the overriding objective and “ to enable counterclaims and other additional claims to be managed in the most convenient and effective manner”: CPR 20.1 and Coll v Floreat Merchant Banking Ltd [2014] EWHC 1741 (QB).
CPR 20.2(1) addresses the scope of Part 20. It applies, so far as relevant,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney
...granting limited permission to amend, and making specific and supplemental disclosure orders against the claimant: Vardy v Rooney (3) [2022] EWHC 304 (QB). 21 On 18 February 2022, the defendant served a Re-Re-Amended Defence and on 25 February 2022 the claimant served a Re-Amended Reply. O......
-
THE COMPANIES ACT (2021 REVISION) and PRINCIPAL INVESTING FUND I Ltd and LONG VIEW II Ltd and GLOBAL FIXED INCOME FUNDS I Ltd Credit Suisse London Nominees Ltd Petitioner v Principal Investing Fund I Ltd Long View II Ltd Global Fixed Income Fund I Ltd First Respondents and Floreat Principal Investment Management Ltd LV II Investment Management Ltd Floreat Investment Management Ltd Second Respondents and (1) Blue Water Ltd (2) Amida Group Holdings Non-Party Applicants
...elsewhere”. Secondly, the Second Respondents' counsel referred in oral argument to the following dicta of Steyn J in Vardy -v- Rooney [2022] EWHC 304 (QB): “ In Lakatamia shipping company limited & Ors v Morimoto [2020] EWHC 3201, Cockerill J reviewed the authorities and summarised the pro......
-
Chedington Events Ltd (formerly Axnoller Events Ltd) v Nihal Mohammed Kamal Brake
...desire to have avoid having details of the negotiations on this deal in the public domain”. 39 More recently, in Vardy v Rooney [2022] EWHC 304 (QB), a libel case, Steyn J also discussed the question of the collateral use of documents. In particular, she referred to the earlier decision of......
-
LexisNexis Case Summary: Vardy v Rooney And Another [2022] EWHC 304 (QB)
...Rooney and Another [2022] EWHC 304 (QB) What are the practical implications of this The aspect of the case dealing with addition of parties will be of interest to those contemplating the addition of a party where the underlying additional claim is neither an indemnity nor a contribution but......
-
LexisNexis Case Summary: Vardy v Rooney And Another [2022] EWHC 304 (QB)
...Rooney and Another [2022] EWHC 304 (QB) What are the practical implications of this The aspect of the case dealing with addition of parties will be of interest to those contemplating the addition of a party where the underlying additional claim is neither an indemnity nor a contribution but......