So, the long and twisting case of Vardy v Rooney has reached a conclusion. It has been a busy few weeks for their respective legal teams!
To recap, the trial judge found in Mrs Rooney’s favour, ordering Mrs Vardy to pay her costs on the indemnity basis. While costs in trials of this size will never be straightforward, they were more complex here, due to Mrs Rooney’s costs far exceeding her costs budget. The Senior Costs judge decided that this was not misconduct. For more details on this, visit our blog here.
Vardy appeals the costs decision
Mrs Vardy appealed the Costs Judge’s decision, and in early April 2025 the Court rejected this appeal.
Jamie Carpenter KC, for Vardy, submitted that the submissions brought by Rooney’s team “were clearly misleading and I am using the term neutrally”. It was accepted that no loss had been caused to Vardy as a result of the costs schedule, but he submitted that the lawyers’ conduct “was improper and unreasonable and the learned judge was wrong to conclude otherwise”
If the appeal was allowed, then Mrs Rooney’s costs would have been reduced from the claimed figure of £1.8 million to £220,995 per the original budget.
Benjamin Williams KC for Rooney, said that the budget should detail expenses that are “reasonable and proportionate” when it comes to costs that are to be determined on the standard basis. However, in this instance “what Miss Vardy is seeking to get out of this application is to unwind a substantial part of the indemnity costs award”.
The Court heard that there had been no litigation misconduct, and no one was suggesting any wrongdoing by Mrs Rooney herself.
Benjamin Williams KC suggested that the submission concerning Mr Lunt conduct with regards the budget value were misplaced and unfair. He further noted that it should be dealt with, if required, by the regulator and not the Court.
Any sanction applied at this stage would be unjust and disproportionate to Mrs Rooney for suggested misconduct by Mr Lunt’s instructions to counsel as to what criticisms to make of Vardy budget.
The Court dismissed the appeal as they found that the Costs Judge was entitled to find that although Mrs Rooney’s team didn’t act with transparency, they did not mislead the court. And therefore does not reach the level of misconduct.
Assessment and agreement
The matter was to proceed to a 9-day detailed assessment. However, prior to the hearing written submissions were prepared stating that the parties had reached an agreement.
Mrs Rooney had claimed costs of £1,833,906.89. The parties agreed that Mrs Vardy would pay a total of £1,190,000, being £1,125,000 plus interest of £65,000 based on a commercial agreement.
Therefore, the only aspect left for the Court to decide was the issue of detailed assessment. Mrs Rooney’s legal team were claiming in excess of £300,000.
Mrs Vardy’s legal team suggested that these costs were unreasonable and disproportionate and should be capped at £100,000. The matter proceeded in front of Costs Judge Mark Whalan who ordered that the figure of £212,266 for detailed assessment.
Therefore, the final figure for Mrs Vardy to pay is £1.4 million of Mrs Rooney’s legal costs.
After a well-documented hotly-fought dispute, it is good to see that sense eventually prevailed and the parties were able to come to an agreement on at least part of the costs.
For expert costs advice, assistance in preparing costs budgets, or bills of costs, contact our experienced costs team. Call us on 0800 988 7756, or fill in our enquiry form.
