Rebekah Vardy is reportedly looking to make ‘a shock return to I’m A Celebrity and surprise rival Coleen Rooney’ this year, according to new reports.
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.
Amid reports that the WAG has signed up for the jungle, Rebekah, 42, who appeared on the show in 2017, reportedly thinks it’s ‘hilarious that Coleen is copying her’.
A friend told me The sun: ‘Becky would immediately get on a plane if she had the chance. She would love to see the look on Coleen’s face when she showed up. It would make for the best television.
‘But she supposes the bosses have promised Coleen they haven’t planned such a surprise. She finds it hilarious that Coleen is copying her and it only encourages people to keep talking about Wagatha instead of leaving it in the past.
Rebekah Vardy, 42, said to ‘make a shock return to I’m A Celebrity and surprise rival Coleen Rooney’ this year (Rebekah pictured in the jungle in 2017)
Coleen, 38, has wanted to take part in the show for years, but only recently felt confident enough to leave her family in Britain.
“Becky has nothing to hide, although she would like to put on her camp outfit.”
MailOnline has contacted Rebekah’s representatives for comment.
It comes after Rebekah shared a cryptic message after it was announced that Coleen will reportedly appear on the show.
Reports claim Coleen has been handed the biggest deal in the show’s history, surpassing Nigel Farage’s £1.5million last year.
While Rebekah may not be an avid viewer, her legal team would be paying close attention to anything that might be said.
It’s also thought she’ll get the ‘ultimate revenge’ by siding with Rebekah, which is set up early in the 2017 series.
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.”
It comes after Rebekah shared a cryptic message after it was announced that Coleen will reportedly appear on the show
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’
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 Rebekah – 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 Coleen’s legal team had committed no wrongdoing, and that it was therefore ‘not an appropriate case’ to reduce the amount Rebekah would receive. should pay.
Court documents show that Rebekah has filed an appeal, which her lawyers Kingsley Napley confirmed regarding the misconduct ruling.
In 2019, former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney’s wife Coleen accused Rebekah 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 Rebekah to pay 90 percent of Coleen’s costs, including an initial payment of £800,000.
‘Wagatha Christie’ case returns to court after Rebekah appeals against having to pay Coleen up to £1.8m in legal costs
In 2019, former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney’s wife Coleen accused Rebekah of leaking her private information to the press on social media.
Ms Vardy sued her for defamation, but Ms Justice Steyn found the allegation was ‘substantially true’ in July 2022
The previous hearing in London was told that Coleen’s claimed bill – £1,833,906.89 – was more than three times her ‘agreed costs budget of £540,779.07’, which Jamie Carpenter KC, for Ms Vardy, said was ‘disproportionate’ .
He alleged that Coleen’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 ‘ was.
Rebekah had demanded a 50 per cent cut in the £1.8 million settlement as it was alleged 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.
Lawyers for Ms Vardy had called Ms Rooney’s legal costs “extraordinary”, including money for a lawyer who “stayed at the Nobu Hotel, and significant food and drink costs, as well as minibar costs”.
They also demanded to know why ‘digital forensics’ experts instructed by Ms Rooney had spent 350 hours looking at social media data, at a cost of £140,000.
But Mr Dunne said one of Coleen’s lawyers only stayed at the hotel due to a problem with their original booking elsewhere.
Judge Gordon-Saker ruled that while there was a ‘failure to be transparent’, this was not ‘sufficiently unreasonable or inappropriate’ to constitute misconduct – as he ruled the account had been legitimately created.
He ordered Ms Vardy to pay Ms Rooney a further £100,000 before the full amount due would be decided at a later date.
He said: ‘I think there is some scope for further payment in advance so that the defendant (Ms Rooney) is not left out of her costs, and I think this should not be more than £100,000.’
The hearing, which neither woman attended, dealt with several preliminary issues before a full ‘line by line’ assessment of costs takes place at a later date, which will decide the total amount to be paid.
Judge Gordon-Saker said this could happen in early 2025, but added: “The parties need to get on with this and put it behind them.”
He said: ‘Realistically it (the line-by-line assessment) will probably be next year, hopefully early next year.’