Rebekah Vardy has shared a cryptic message after it was announced that her rival Coleen Rooney will reportedly appear on I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!
Coleen, 38, has been keen to take part in the show for years but only recently felt confident enough to leave her family in Britain.
Reports claim she has been offered the biggest deal in the show’s history, surpassing Nigel Farage’s £1.5million last year.
While Rebekah, 42, may not be an avid viewer, her legal team is said to be paying close attention to anything that might be said.
It is also thought she will get the ‘ultimate revenge’ by signing on, with her arch rival, Rebekah Vardy, being eliminated early in the 2017 series.
Rebekah Vardy has shared a cryptic message after it was announced that her rival Coleen Rooney will reportedly appear on I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!
Coleen, 38, has wanted to take part in the show for years, but only recently felt confident enough to leave her family in Britain.
Rebekah apparently has no plans to watch Coleen’s appearance on I’m A Celebrity, unless it’s to catch her in a stomach-churning Bushtucker Trial.
Fans are desperate for Coleen to spill the beans on the Wagatha Christie drama on the reality show, but it’s reported she’s not taking any chances.
On her Instagram Stories, Rebekah shared the caption: “I take rumors as a compliment. The fact that you bring my name to tables that I don’t sit at shows your obsession. Stay concerned.”
Meanwhile, the ‘Wagatha Christie’ case returns to court after Rebekah appealed against having to pay Coleen up to £1.8million in legal costs.
Lawyers for the women fought in the High Court last month over how much Rebekah should pay in costs after losing a defamation case in 2022, and her legal team confirmed on Friday that she is challenging the judge’s ruling.
During a three-day hearing, lawyers for Rekbeah – the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy – argued that the amount should be reduced due to what they called ‘serious misconduct’ by Coleen’s legal team.
But Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker ruled ‘on balance and, I must say, merely’ that Ms Rooney’s legal team had committed no wrongdoing, and that it was therefore ‘not an appropriate case’ to reduce the amount of money Ms Vardy must pay.
Court documents show Ms Vardy has filed an appeal, which her lawyers Kingsley Napley confirmed regarding the misconduct ruling.
Rebekah shared a text reading: “I take rumors as a compliment. The fact that you bring my name to tables that I don’t sit at shows your obsession. Stay bothered’
Reports claim she has been offered the biggest deal in the show’s history, surpassing Nigel Farage’s £1.5million last year
In 2019, Mrs Rooney, the wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Mrs Vardy of leaking her private information to the press on social media.
Ms Vardy sued her for defamation, but Ms Justice Steyn found in July 2022 that the allegation was ‘substantially true’.
The judge later ordered Ms Vardy to pay 90 per cent of Ms Rooney’s costs, including an initial payment of £800,000.
The previous hearing in London was told that Ms Rooney’s claimed legal bill – £1,833,906.89 – was more than three times her ‘agreed costs budget of £540,779.07’, which Jamie Carpenter KC on behalf of Ms Vardy said was ‘disproportionate’ mentioned.
He alleged that Ms Rooney’s legal team committed misconduct by underestimating some of her costs so that she could “use the apparent difference in costs incurred to attack the other party’s costs”, which was “deliberately misleading’.
Ms Vardy had demanded a 50 per cent cut in the £1.8 million settlement over claims Coleen charged for a lawyer’s stay at a five-star hotel in Nobu.
Her lawyers argued that the opposing legal team’s estimate of their costs for expenses, including a luxury hotel and a hotly contested minibar bill, was deliberately misleading and justified a reduction in the amount she had to pay.
Coleen’s lawyer Robin Dunne insisted: ‘There is no wrongdoing’, and that it was ‘illogical to say we misled anyone’.
He added that the argument that the amount owed should be reduced was “misconceived” and that the budget was “not designed to be an accurate or binding representation” of her total legal costs.