Rebekah Vardy ‘has nothing to hide’, high court hears ahead of Wagatha Christie case  

‘has nothing to hide’, the has heard ahead of her libel trial against . 

After it was today revealed that in the infamous Wagatha Christie court case, her lawyer has fired back in response to claims the legal dispute had been hit by ‘a series of unfortunate events’. 

Mrs Rooney accused Mrs Vardy of leaking ‘false stories’ about her private life to the media in October 2019 after carrying out a months-long ‘sting operation’. 

The wife of former England star was dubbed ‘Wagatha Christie’ when she publicly claimed her fellow footballer’s wife shared fake stories she had posted on her personal Instagram account with The Sun newspaper. 

Mrs Vardy, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, denies the accusations and is suing Mrs Rooney for libel. 

At a preliminary hearing on Wednesday, Mrs Rooney’s barrister David Sherborne asked for some documents from News Group Newspapers – the publisher of The Sun – to be disclosed. 

Mr Sherborne said this focused on communications between Mrs Vardy, her agent Caroline Watt and nine journalists working for The Sun newspaper in which the two women were allegedly ‘passing on stories or information relating to other parties’. 

He claimed disclosure linked to Mrs Vardy in the legal dispute had been hit by ‘a series of unfortunate events’ which meant the bid for information from the journalists was a ‘last resort’. 

‘In order to get the documents needed for the fair disposal of her claim she finds herself in between a rock and a hard place,’ Mr Sherborne added. 

The barrister later claimed this included Mrs Vardy’s expert downloading her data to inspect but then he had ‘forgotten the password which he used to encrypt the material and he couldn’t remember it’. 

However, Sara Mansoori QC, for Mrs Vardy, later said there had been a ‘corruption issue’ with the password. 

Adam Wolanski QC, representing News Group Newspapers, labelled Mrs Rooney’s bid for disclosure from The Sun journalists as a ‘fishing expedition’. 

Hugh Tomlinson QC, also for Mrs Vardy, said she was ‘critically neutral’ on the request for documents. 

‘Rebekah Vardy has nothing to hide,’ he told the court. 

Mrs Justice Steyn granted Mrs Rooney’s request for the documents from News Group Newspapers but only related to communications between Mrs Vardy, Ms Watt and The Sun journalist Andrew Halls. 

The High Court in London has also heard that Ms Watt is not fit to give oral evidence to the trial due to start next month. 

Mrs Rooney’s lawyers previously claimed that Mrs Vardy had L***ed information to The Sun either directly or through Ms Watt ‘acting on her instruction or with her knowing approval’. 

Ms Watt was referred to at an earlier hearing after the High Court in London heard that WhatsApp messages between Mrs Vardy and Ms Watt had been disclosed. 

Texts heard in court included Mrs Vardy referring to someone, whose identity is disputed, as a ‘nasty bitch’. 

In written arguments for Wednesday’s hearing, Mr Tomlinson said: ‘The claimant served a witness statement of Caroline Watt with the intention of calling Ms Watt to give oral evidence at the trial. 

‘The claimant’s solicitors were, however, aware that Ms Watt was in a fragile state and had been expressing serious concerns about giving evidence.’ 

He added that a consultant forensic psychiatrist has produced a report which concluded Ms Watt is not fit to provide oral evidence at the High Court trial. 

‘In these circumstances, it is clear that Ms Watt cannot be called to give evidence,’ he concluded. 

Mr Sherborne argued Ms Watt is a ‘key witness’ for the trial with ‘critical’ evidence. 

In written arguments, Mr Sherborne said: ‘Ms Watt is now saying that she is too ill to attend court to be cross-examined on the events and allegations concerning her, although she was and is able to provide a lengthy witness statement about them, provided she is not questioned about it. 

‘The defendant’s position is that Ms Watt’s concern about giving evidence is because of the realisation that her evidence is untrue and therefore she is scared of being tested upon it.’ 

The hearing before Mrs Justice Steyn, which is due to end on Wednesday, continues.