|
Dont you just wish there was a law about stealing oxygen from the atmosphere that this pair could be charged with?
|
A couple of trivial non-entities, only wealthy because of their husbands, blowing millions on a court case over nothing while a large part of the population have to choose between heat or eat.
If it was a movie it could be called "Battle of The Airheads".
|
I have little to zero interest in this kind of crap, too. But I had Sky News on in the background this afternoon and some top lawyer was explaining to the layman what was happening and the likely outcome. The newsreader asked about costs. He said both of them would be paying about a million and half. And he said if Bint-1 wins the defamation case against Bint-2 (their names escape me, I don't read Hello), she'll only recover about 70% costs and the damages will be between £25-75k. So a win will still cost her half a mill.
Smiles all round for the legal teams, though.
|
|
they could make the money up from press and tv stories ,advertising
|
|
Strange that you don't know their names but you are happy to post in a thread about Vardy v. Roon(e)y.
|
|
I wonder if their husbands are supportive of this unnecessary rigmarole?
|
>> I wonder if their husbands are supportive of this unnecessary rigmarole?
>>
I don't doubt they think this court case is going to be cheaper than a divorce.
Although why they got married in the first place defies imagination. I doubt the two couples together could scrape up enough brain cells to make an average IQ for one person.
|
>> I have little to zero interest in this kind of crap
I understand how you feel and I'm not following it closely, but the news seems to think we're all interested.
I reckon it's more a case of sit down, make yourself comfy and get out the popcorn.
|
I find this on a par with Depp/Heard ! What with Beergate, Partygate and all the other trivial crap we are fed, it's enough to make you fall into a deep sleep for the next few years.
Why can't this gruesome pair of tarts just settle their differences out of court, preferably having a televised, nude mud wrestling session ?
Oh and no news on Pippa's bottom recently, what's happened there ?
Ted
|
I've stopped reading alot of online media simply because serious journalism seems to have fallen by the wayside.
For example, Covid is now very much 'last year's news' despite the fact that it's effect on global supply chains is still causing untold suffering in some of the most deprived areas of the UK.
www.thesun.co.uk/news/18537018/plastic-willy-shortage-supply-chain/
|
The media report that which their target audience are both interested in, and understand.
Sadly most folk are intellectually ill-equipped to deal with anything other than inflatable "bits" and the antics of the equally deficient WAGS and other celebs.
If news were food, all that would be available would be microwave meals. Most are either incapable of cooking real food and/or prefer flavour enhanced salty, sugary, fatty fodder in front of the TV watching the aforesaid media garbage.
|
|
That’s a very depressing view of your fellow citizens. I don’t really think it’s true. It is perfectly possible to enjoy celebrity gossip and popular TV soaps and also understand weightier issues. In fact I suspect most people watch a bit of trash TV here and there. I would go as far as saying that a lack of understanding of popular culture is a kind of ignorance in its own way.
|
I thought he captured a certain section of our population quite well. Of course it's possible to see it for what it is which requires a certain intellect. It is often just pure voyeurism not dissimilar to public executions back in the day.
Areas of social media and clickbait advertising ride on the back of the mindset and worryingly seem to prosper.
|
>> If news were food, all that would be available would be microwave meals.
If news were food, a large proportion would be takeways/Deliveroo/Just Eat etc. Some would be microwave. Very little food would be good value, high quality meals at Wetherspoons.
|
>>
>> Very little food would be good value, high quality meals at Wetherspoons.
>>
Very true
|
Colleen Rooney’s barrister, David Sherborne, addressing the court, says the phone lost in the sea “is now in Davy Jones’s locker”.
Rebekah Vardy to the judge: “I’m sorry, I don’t know who Davy Jones is.”
|
>
>>
>> Rebekah Vardy to the judge: “I’m sorry, I don’t know who Davy Jones is.”
>>
Lead singer in a four piece beat combo, M'lud.
|
Verdict to be published online at noon tomorrow (Friday).
A nation holds it's breath.
|
|
BBC news leading on this ! FFS
|
Good tho, the Judge savaged Vardy.
|
>> Good tho, the Judge savaged Vardy.
>>
Not half. Didn't believe Vardy lost her What's App messages accidentally while downloading them to her solicitor, or that her PR - shortly after being ordered to provide her copies of the messages - accidentally went on a boat trip in the North Sea and leant over the gunwale holding her phone while a wave hit the boat, making her drop it on the Dogger Bank.
Even the winner will probably end up with costs in 6 figures, Vardy's share has been estimated at £3million. Only lawyers win libel actions.
Last edited by: Manatee on Fri 29 Jul 22 at 19:26
|
>>
>>
>> Even the winner will probably end up with costs in 6 figures, Vardy's share has
>> been estimated at £3million. Only lawyers win libel actions.
>>
I'm sure the loser bears the full cost.
|
Vardy has said that she ' cannot accept the verdict' and 'the judge has got it wrong' according to the Telegraph.
I have no words.....
|
>>I'm sure the loser bears the full cost.
To some extent is up to the judge.
In this case it appears that on 4 occasions Rooney offered to settle the action but Vardy refused to accept.
I expect this will make the judge more likely to have Vardy pay the lot.
|
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when her footballer hubby is down the pub with his mates
Assuming she lets him out occasionally
|
>> I'm sure the loser bears the full cost.
The general rule is still, I think, that the loser pays the winners costs. Those costs are however subject to the court's assessment of what is reasonable. Costs which are unreasonable still have to be paid. There also is, or used to be, a distinction between party and party costs and solicitor and own client costs. The latter fell to the party instructing.
There is also a formal process for making offers under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules. This used to involve physically paying the sum offered into court but that was discontinued around 20 years ago.
Rooney apparently made four offers to settle which were rejected. There may be some argument as to the effect of those and/or whether, if the Rooney side's case involved applications that failed, which costs she should be liable for.
The fact that the Judge sought submissions and possibly a further hearing on costs suggests the situation is not straightforward.
|
So, the judge could go 50:50, 66:33, or any other permutation?
BTW. Did you find your phone?
|
|
As it was Vardy who brought the case, and was more or less accused of committing perjury, obstruction, and destroying evidence I doubt she will be getting her costs paid for by Rooney.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 30 Jul 22 at 10:05
|
|
She does appear to have been rather extravagant with her footballing husbands earnings..
Last edited by: legacylad on Sat 30 Jul 22 at 10:23
|
>> As it was Vardy who brought the case, and was more or less accused of
>> committing perjury, obstruction, and destroying evidence I doubt she will be getting her costs paid
>> for by Rooney.
I doubt it too, Vardy as the plaintiff and the loser will have to pay her own and Rooney should get a chunk of her costs against Vardy. Probably not all of it because there's always an argument that costs have not been fully mitigated where possible.
Not applicable in this case but I believe there have been libel cases where the plaintiff has actually won and not been awarded their costs because the case has been regarded as frivolous or vexatious, with damages assessed at something nominal e.g. 1p.
|
|
The legal profession must see Mrs V as a dream come true.
Last edited by: maltrap on Sat 30 Jul 22 at 16:45
|
>> Not applicable in this case but I believe there have been libel cases where the
>> plaintiff has actually won and not been awarded their costs because the case has been
>> regarded as frivolous or vexatious, with damages assessed at something nominal e.g. 1p.
Not frivolous or vexatious but set out a false case until just before trial. Got £1. Judge to hear submissions on costs:
www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/01/craig-wright-wins-only-nominal-damages-of-1-in-bitcoin-libel-case
|
>> So, the judge could go 50:50, 66:33, or any other permutation?
If she wants to have further submissions on costs then I suspect that even though Vardy seems to have lost comprehensively then the Judge thinks there are some issues to resolve. These may concern costs to/from or between particular dates particularly if Part 36 offers have been made and rejected. There are rules governing that.
There may also have been, as somebody else said, failures to mitigate loss or procedural dead ends/applications without merit made by the Rooney camp.
>> BTW. Did you find your phone?
>>
|
Mrs V, after finding out who Davy Jones is,
is instructing her legal team !
|
|
It could have all ended so differently. If Colleen Rooney , on discovering the source of the leaks, had simply had a quiet word with Mrs V they might still be friends and a few million pounds better off.
|
|
I don't think they were ever friends, neither were their respective husbands.
|
By all accounts they were.
|
>> By all accounts they were.
The judgment says that, at the time of Euro 2016, they were acquainted and on friendly terms but not close. The Rooneys had been invited to the Vardys' wedding and although unable to attend they had sent a gift.
|
|
Having read through the judgment it's clear that the procedural history is complex and convoluted which will be a factor in why the costs issue is also complex.
|
>> BTW. Did you find your phone?
I was a bit slow on the uptake yesterday and didn't 'get' the joke there.
Never found but it's definitely not in Davy Jones's locker. Either it got mixed up with rubbish or it'll turn up in future when we next move furniture around in my study or the lounge.
|
Law Society Gazette's take is that while the Vardy camp is looking at a bill in millions Mrs Rooney might get back 70% of her outlay - less the cost of procedural shenanigans at her initiation that were without merit.
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/wagatha-christie-vardy-facing-monstrous-costs-bill-after-libel-claim-dismissed/5113283.article?
Coleen Rooney has, I suspect assets of her own, a fashion etc business. She actually strikes me as more grounded and much less of an airhead than some would have us believe.
|
Vardy's lawyers might suffer a ding in their reputations. I certainly won't be employing Kingsley Napley or Hugh Tomlinson QC.
Shouldn't they have poked at the evidence before taking her on?
Albeit that it was Rooney who was to be put to proof of the truthfulness of her tweeting. there must have been every chance that disclosure would be required from Vardy and her PR. They should have had that in their hands before they dug the hole, at which point presumably they would have told her not to dig it.
|
>> Vardy's lawyers might suffer a ding in their reputations. I certainly won't be employing Kingsley
>> Napley or Hugh Tomlinson QC.
>>
>> Shouldn't they have poked at the evidence before taking her on?
I think its very likely that both Kingsley Napley and Hugh Tomlinson repeatedly advised Rebekah that there were gaps in her case. If she was determined to plough on then they have to make the best of it they can.
Oh to be a fly on the wall when the lawyers discussed their client in her absence....
|
As my late mother would have said
"More money than sense"
|
Looks as though Rebekah Vardy will be paying £1.5million towards Mrs Rooney's costs:
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/oct/04/rebekah-vardy-to-pay-15m-in-legal-fees-after-losing-wagatha-christie-libel-trial
Plus the entirety of her own lawyers charges.
She (or Jamie) must be looking at a total bill of around £4million in costs.
|
"Easy come, easy go"
"A fool and their money are soon parted"
etc., etc.
|
|
According to whose research you read, between 40% (Linkedin) and 60% (Xpro, a charity for retired players) of Premier League are bankrupt within five years of retiring. Too much money from an early age means they have no idea how to handle it or budget, and when the big bucks are no longer there they quickly run it down.
|
|
Costs at the higher 'indemnity' rate for witholding/destroying evidence.
|
Vardy vs Roony WAGS. - Robin O'Reliant
