Rebekah Vardy has shared a cryptic post after it was announced that her rival Coleen Rooney will appear on I’m a Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here!
Coleen, 38, is said to have been interested in joining the show for years, but recently felt safe enough to leave her family in the UK.
Reports claim he has been offered the biggest deal in the show’s history, surpassing Nigel Farage’s £1.5million from last year.
While Rebekah, 42, may not be an avid viewer, her legal team is said to be paying close attention to everything that may be said.
She is also believed to get ‘ultimate revenge’ upon signing up, with arch-rival Rebekah Vardy being ousted early in the 2017 series.
Rebekah Vardy has shared a cryptic post after it was announced that her rival Coleen Rooney will appear on I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out Of Here!
Coleen, 38, is said to have been interested in joining the show for years, but recently felt safe enough to leave her family in the UK.
Rebekah apparently has no plans to watch Coleen’s season of I’m A Celebrity unless it’s to see her tackling a stomach-churning Bushtucker trial.
Fans are desperate for Coleen to tell all about the Wagatha Christie drama on the reality show, but it has been reported that she is not taking any chances.
On her Instagram Stories, Rebekah shared a text that read: ‘I take the rumors as a compliment. The fact that you put my name on tables I don’t sit at shows your obsession. He’s still upset.’
Meanwhile, the ‘Wagatha Christie’ case is back in court after Rebekah lodged an appeal 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 lawsuit in 2022 and her legal team confirmed on Friday that they are challenging the judge’s ruling.
At a three-day hearing, lawyers for Rekbeah, the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, argued the sum should be reduced due to what they said was “gross misconduct” by Coleen’s legal team.
But Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker concluded “on the whole and, I must say, narrowly”, that Ms Rooney’s legal team had committed no offense and therefore it was “not an appropriate case “reduce the amount of money Ms Vardy should pay.
Court documents show Ms Vardy has lodged an appeal, which her lawyers Kingsley Napley upheld in relation to the misconduct finding.
Rebekah shared a text that read: ‘I take the rumors as a compliment. The fact that you put my name on tables I don’t sit at shows your obsession. Stay upset’
Reports claim he has been offered the biggest deal in the show’s history, surpassing Nigel Farage’s £1.5 million last year.
In 2019, Ms Rooney, wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Ms Vardy of leaking her private information to the press on social media.
Ms Vardy sued her for defamation, but Judge Steyn concluded in July 2022 that the allegation was “substantially true”.
The judge subsequently 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 said that the legal bill claimed by Mrs Rooney – £1,833,906.89 – was more than three times her “agreed costs budget of £540,779.07”, which Jamie Carpenter KC, in representation of Ms Vardy, considered “disproportionate”.
He claimed 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 thus created to attack the other party’s costs”, which was “a knowingly deceitful.”
Mrs Vardy had demanded a 50 per cent cut on the £1.8m deal as Coleen was alleged to be charging for a lawyer’s stay at a five-star Nobu hotel.
Her lawyers argued that the opposing legal team’s estimate of her costs for expenses including a luxury hotel and a hotly disputed minibar bill was deliberately misleading and that this justified a reduction in the amount she had to pay.
Coleen’s lawyer, Robin Dunne, insisted: “There has been no misconduct” and that it was “illogical to say we misled anyone.”
He added that the argument that the amount owed should be reduced was “flawed” and that the quote was “not designed to be an accurate or binding representation” of his overall legal costs.