Rebekah Vardy supposedly “wants to make a shock return to I’m A Celebrity this year and surprise her rival Coleen Rooney”, according to new reports.
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.
Amid reports that WAG has signed up for the jungle, Rebekah, 42, who appeared on the show in 2017, allegedly finds it “hilarious that Coleen is copying her”.
a friend told him the sun: ‘Becky would be straight on a plane if she had the chance. He would love to see the look on Coleen’s face if he showed up. It would be the best television.
But he imagines that the bosses have promised Coleen that they have no such surprise planned. She thinks it’s funny that Coleen is copying her and just encourages people to keep talking about Wagatha instead of leaving it in the past.
Rebekah Vardy, 42, reportedly ‘wants to make a shock return to I’m A Celebrity this year and surprise rival Coleen Rooney’ (Rebekah pictured in the jungle in 2017)
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.
“Becky has nothing to hide, although she would love to wear her camp costume.”
MailOnline has contacted Rebekah’s representatives for comment.
It comes after Rebekah shared a cryptic post after it was announced that Coleen will reportedly appear on the show.
Reports claim Coleen has been offered the biggest deal in the show’s history, surpassing Nigel Farage’s £1.5million from last year.
While Rebekah 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 believed that she will get ‘ultimate revenge’ upon signing up, with Rebekah set to be ousted early in the 2017 series.
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.’
It comes after Rebekah shared a cryptic post after it was announced that Coleen will reportedly appear on the show.
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’
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 Rebekah, the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, argued the sum should be reduced due to what they said was “serious misconduct” by Coleen’s legal team.
But Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker concluded “on the whole and, I must say, only narrowly”, that Coleen’s legal team had committed no offense and therefore it was “not an appropriate case” to reduce the amount of money Rebekah should pay.
Court documents show Rebekah has lodged a proposed appeal, which her lawyers Kingsley Napley confirmed in relation to the misconduct ruling.
In 2019, Coleen, wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Rebekah 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 Rebekah to pay 90 per cent of Coleen’s costs, including an initial payment of £800,000.
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.
In 2019, Coleen, wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Rebekah 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”.
At the previous hearing in London it was said that the legal bill claimed by Coleen – £1,833,906.89 – was more than three times her “agreed costs budget of £540,779.07”, which Jamie Carpenter KC, representing Mrs Vardy, considered it “disproportionate”.
He claimed that Coleen’s legal team had committed misconduct by understating some of her costs so that she could “use the apparent difference in costs incurred so created to attack the other party’s costs”, which was “knowingly misleading “.
Rebekah had demanded a 50 per cent cut on the £1.8million deal as it was alleged Coleen was 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.
Ms Vardy’s lawyers had described Ms Rooney’s legal costs as “extraordinary”, including money for a lawyer who was staying “at the Nobu hotel, incurring substantial expenses for dinner and drinks, as well as minibar charges.” .
They also demanded to know why ‘digital forensics’ experts instructed by Ms Rooney had spent 350 hours analyzing social media data, at a cost of £140,000.
But Dunne said one of Coleen’s lawyers only stayed at the hotel because of a problem with her original reservation elsewhere.
Judge Gordon-Saker ruled that while there was a “lack of transparency”, it was not “sufficiently unreasonable or inappropriate” to constitute misconduct, as he ruled that the bill had been legitimately incurred.
He ordered Ms Vardy to pay Ms Rooney a further £100,000 before the full amount owed was decided at a later date.
He said: “I think there is scope for an additional payment on account so that the defendant (Ms Rooney) is not exempt from her costs, and I think it should not be more than £100,000.”
The hearing, which was not attended by any of the women, addressed a number of preliminary issues before a full “line by line” assessment of costs takes place at a later date, which will decide the total amount of money to be paid.
Judge Gordon-Saker said this could take place in early 2025, but added: “The parties must get on with this and put it behind them.”
He said: “Realistically, (the line-by-line assessment) will probably be next year, hopefully early next year.”