Rebekah Vardy has accused Coleen Rooney of “putting two and two together and making seven” in the latest round of the Wagatha Christie legal battle.
Mrs Rooney, wife of England’s top scorer Wayne, accused fellow footballer’s wife Mrs Vardy of leaking stories to tabloid press about her after she turned detective using her own social media accounts.
In a dramatic social media post in October 2019, Mrs Rooney detailed how she posted a series of fake stories about her family on her Instagram, and set it so that only Mrs Vardy, wife of Leicester City player Jamie, could view them.
She told her followers that she wanted to see if the fake stories made their way into The Sun and confirmed that they did.
The post prompted legal action from Mrs Vardy, who said she and her children had suffered abuse as a result of the allegation and is suing for libel.
Since then, the warring wives have spent tens of thousands of pounds each on their very public legal spat, labelled “Wagatha Christie” in the press after social media users made light of Mrs Rooney’s detective skills.
In the latest round of legal proceedings, Mrs Vardy’s legal representation accused Mrs Rooney of “putting two and two together and making seven”.
Mrs Vardy claims that Mrs Rooney has no proof that it was her selling stories to The Sun and that it must have been someone else using her social media accounts or she could have been hacked.
Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Mrs Vardy, 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.
“Her children were also abused at school and it is a very serious matter from her point of view.”
David Sherborne, Mrs Rooney’s barrister, said that the fact Mrs Vardy had a close relationship with The Sun newspaper and wrote an anonymous column for them called “The Secret Wag” was key to proving that his client’s social media post was factual and not libellous.
He said: “The timing of positive coverage of the claimant in The Sun was strikingly close to the publication of other articles that were leaked from the defendant’s private Instagram.
“This supports the inference that the claimant was benefiting from the leak of private information about the defendant to the newspaper.”
The case continues.