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 join the show for years, but only recently felt confident enough to leave her family behind in the UK.
She has reportedly been offered the biggest deal in the show’s history, eclipsing Nigel Farage’s £1.5million deal last year.
While Rebekah, 42, may not be a keen viewer, her legal team are said to be keeping a close eye on what might be said.
It is also thought that she will take ‘ultimate revenge’ by signing on after her arch-rival, Rebekah Vardy, was 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 join the show for years, but only recently felt confident enough to leave her family behind in the UK.
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 about the Wagatha Christie drama on the reality show, but she’s said to be taking no chances.
Taking to her Instagram Stories, Rebekah shared the caption: “I take rumours as a compliment. The fact that you’re mentioning my name at tables I’m not at shows how obsessed you are. Stay concerned.”
Meanwhile, the ‘Wagatha Christie’ case is set to return to court after Rebekah appealed against Coleen being ordered to pay up to £1.8million in legal fees.
Lawyers for the women fought in the High Court last month over how much Rebekah should pay in costs after losing a libel case in 2022, and her legal team confirmed on Friday that they were 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 because of 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 misconduct, and that it was therefore “not appropriate” to reduce the amount Ms Vardy was ordered to pay.
Court documents show that Ms Vardy has lodged an appeal, which her lawyers Kingsley Napley confirmed in relation to the misconduct ruling.
Rebekah shared a text that read: “I take rumors as a compliment. The fact that you mention my name at tables I’m not at shows that you’re obsessed. Keep interfering.”
She has reportedly been offered the biggest deal in the show’s history, surpassing Nigel Farage’s £1.5m payout last year
In 2019, Ms Rooney, the wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Ms Vardy of leaking her private information to the press via social media.
Ms Vardy sued for libel, but Judge Steyn ruled 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.
At the previous hearing in London, it 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, called ‘disproportionate’.
He alleged that Ms Rooney’s legal team had committed misconduct by understating 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 sought a 50 per cent cut in the £1.8 million settlement over claims that Coleen charged for a lawyer’s stay at a five-star Nobu hotel.
Her lawyers argued that the opposing team’s estimate of costs for expenses including a luxury hotel and a hotly contested minibar bill was deliberately misleading and justified a reduction in the amount she was required to pay.
Coleen’s lawyer Robin Dunne insisted: ‘There was 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 estimate was ‘not designed to be an accurate or binding representation’ of her total legal costs.