Luxury hotels, minibars and the ongoing feud between Rebecca Vardy and Coleen Rooney

An argument over a fancy hotel, a minibar tab, and two women who just can’t agree.

Yes, you guessed it. Wagatha Christie is back.

The dispute between Coleen Rooney and Rebecca Vardy is back in court this week, exactly five years after the social media post that sparked the high-profile defamation battle.

During the High Court trial in 2022, media around the world watched closely, taking note of the details of a criminal enterprise worthy of author Agatha Christie.

Rooney sued the wife of a fellow football player for leaking personal information about him to the press, and ultimately won.

Vardy was ordered to pay 90% of his rival’s legal costs, which now stand at more than £1.8 million.

The showdown returned to court this week as Vardy sought to have his charges reduced.

It’s a melodrama-worthy tale, one that draws on the British fascination with footballer wag (wives and girlfriends). It has already produced several documentaries. And it’s not over yet.

“At some point next year, we’ll be back again to go through the excruciating process of scrutinizing the costs, line by line,” said Jonathan, a media lawyer who has followed the case since the beginning. Code says.

“That’s ridiculous,” he added. “That’s the last place you want to end up.”

Another week after the now infamous Wagasa riot, here’s what we learned.

This week’s hearings were “close”, but in the end “the winner looks like it’s going to be Colleen again”, Coad said.

Ms Vardy’s lawyers argued there were various reasons why the amount she would have to pay should be reduced.

But in his judgment on Tuesday, Chief Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker rejected many of Mr Vardy’s claims.

He said Rooney’s legal team had determined that he had not committed any wrongdoing, but that he had come to that decision “on balance and justly.” But that meant it was “not the right case” to reduce the amount Vardy was owed.

The next day, the judge ordered Vardy to pay Rooney £100,000 this month.

It doesn’t add to the debt she already owes. Vardy has already paid £800,000 and the £100,000 will be a further payment on the final bill.

“Vardy took a risk, it didn’t work out and now she’s back with another £100,000,” says Coad.

In 2022, the world’s media flocked to London as Rooney and Vardy arrived at the High Court, flanked by their husbands.

Even the American media was gripped, trying to understand why the two “soccer wives” would face off against each other.

Neither woman turned up this week, leaving a barrister to argue on their behalf.

Naturally, that didn’t mean a media uproar outside the courthouse. And indoors, where I was, there were fewer fireworks than last time.

Of course, the British tabloids were still having a field day. This week’s headlines were definitely Metro, which dubbed the whole incident “My Thrift.”

But the purpose of this hearing was much quieter. There was no cross-examination and the arguments were not very inflammatory, but the two KCs still put up a decent fight.

Cost hearings are dry at best. Everyone is so excited to know the intricate details of billing fees, even if big names are involved.

That being said, there were still some interesting details.

One of the claims that attracted headlines concerned a stay at a five-star hotel in London.

Vardy’s lawyer said the total legal fees paid by Rooney in the 2022 case “included the attorney’s fees for staying at the Nobu Hotel, including minibar charges, as well as significant dinner and drink costs.” There will be costs,” he said.

The hotel brand, which was spun off from an upscale Japanese restaurant, bills itself as “one of the leading luxury lifestyle hotel chains.”

But on Tuesday, Rooney’s lawyer Robin Dunn said the spending claims were “factually inaccurate.”

“Yesterday morning, the Sun had a front page headline about charging for minibars,” he said.

“This case has been reported around the world many times on Twitter, X, etc.,” he said, adding that the charges were seen as “evidence of the defendant’s spending sprees.”

He said a “modest” hotel was initially booked for the lawyer.

However, because there was no Wi-Fi or showers on the first night, Rooney’s attorney said he was offered a discount, so he was transferred to Nobu.

A room at Nobu normally costs £600, but he was charged £295, the same price as a room at a Premier Inn.

It was also claimed that £225 was spent on meals and a minibar tab.

But Mr Dunn claimed the actual minibar bill was just £7 for two bottles of water, and his solicitor said he did not eat at Nobu Restaurant during his stay.

Vardy’s team also argued that Rooney’s use of London-based law firm Stewarts was “unreasonable” and that she should have looked for a law firm closer to where she lived in north-west England. .

However, it was rejected by the judge.

“This is always going to be a high-profile case, and it’s garnered quite a bit of press coverage both here and elsewhere,” Gordon Saker said Tuesday.

“Defamation remains a specialist field and most defamation firms are based in central London.”

He added that instructing a central London solicitor was a “rational choice” given the scale of the claim and the “reputation at stake”.

The judge also rejected Vardy’s claims that it was unreasonable for Rooney to consult lawyers 30 times and spend nearly half a million pounds.

He said Vardy’s actions, particularly the destruction of evidence, “added complexity” and “clearly justified above-guideline fees” for even the most experienced lawyers.

But he said the hourly rate for less experienced lawyers should have been lower.

This battle isn’t over yet.

This week’s hearings covered some principled points. A cost item-by-item evaluation will be conducted, and is expected to be carried out as early as next spring.

And while some judgments are yet to be handed down, it is still possible that Vardy may end up paying less than the estimated £1.6m he was instructed to pay.

Ironically, as Corad points out, both sides will be investing even more money in this latest battle.

And there was probably just a hint of anger in the judge’s farewell shot.

“The parties need to address this issue and put it behind them,” he said.