Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney

Applications to add or consolidate an additional claim are governed by the connection between the claims, the remedies sought, the risk of inconsistent judgments, the stage reached, delay and practical prejudice. A strong factual overlap does not outweigh substantial unfairness caused by delaying an existing trial or compressing the procedural timetable for a new party.

The prohibition on collateral use of disclosed documents applies to information derived from those documents. Permission requires special circumstances and cogent reasons. Pleadings must identify material facts concisely and proportionately. Specific disclosure must be necessary and proportionate, and a train-of-enquiry order requires focused justification.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning a social-media post published by the defendant. The defendant sought to add claims against the claimant’s agent for misuse of private information and breach of data-protection rights, or alternatively to have proposed separate proceedings tried and managed with the libel claim.

The defendant also sought permission to use disclosed documents for the proposed claim, permission to re-re-amend her defence, further disclosure and a joint request to Instagram. The claimant sought further information and disclosure from the defendant and identified custodians. The judgment determined the applications before trial.

1. Additional claim and consolidation. The proposed claim was within the broad scope of CPR Part 20. The court nevertheless refused permission under CPR 20.9 and refused the alternative application under CPR 3.1(2)(h). Although the claims had a strong factual connection and could otherwise sensibly be heard together, the application was made more than 14 months after the defence and shortly before trial. The defendant had not explained the delay as required by PD20. Granting permission would probably delay the libel trial by six to 12 months and would unfairly prolong the claimant’s attempt to vindicate her reputation. Compressing the new claim would unfairly prejudice the proposed respondent.
2. Collateral use. The proposed proceedings against a non-party involved different causes of action and were properly viewed as collateral. The defendant’s use of documents disclosed in the libel proceedings therefore breached CPR 31.22. Retrospective permission was exceptional, and the defendant had not shown the special circumstances or cogent reasons required. Permission was refused.
3. Pleadings and information. Statements of case must contain material facts, not evidence, argument or rhetoric, and must be concise and proportionate. Permission to re-re-amend was granted only for specified limited amendments, including a confined allegation concerning ‘Mr X’. The claimant’s request for further information about the Secret Wag articles was refused because the existing pleading enabled her to understand and answer the case.
4. Disclosure. The claimant’s redactions to WhatsApp messages applied too narrow a view of CPR 31.6. The court ordered a manual review and disclosure of the claimant’s WhatsApp communications with the respondent during the relevant period, but rejected a train-of-enquiry order as disproportionate. The claimant’s wider disclosure application was refused, although steps were directed to seek information about users of the defendant’s private Instagram account.
5. Instagram. The parties were ordered to make a co-ordinated joint request to Instagram, with parallel requests permitted if Instagram preferred them. The court could require the parties to seek agreement on a protocol, but could not order them to agree.