Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney

Where a party succeeds in an appeal, costs ordinarily follow the event. A modest reduction is not justified merely because some subsidiary arguments were unsuccessful, particularly where those arguments occupied little of the hearing and the successful party upheld the decision below.

Summary assessment should ordinarily be conducted by the judge who awarded the costs. Where a judge sat with a costs judge as assessor, it is appropriate for the assessor to undertake the summary assessment because of the assessor’s expertise and familiarity with the proceedings. The presumption of a payment on account under CPR 44.2(8) applies to detailed assessment, not summary assessment.

The ruling concerned consequential matters following the dismissal of Rebekah Vardy’s costs appeal against Coleen Rooney. In the earlier proceedings, Ms Vardy’s defamation claim had failed and Ms Rooney had been awarded 90% of her costs on the indemnity basis. The appeal challenged the detailed assessment of those costs, including whether misconduct or unreasonable conduct justified a reduction under CPR 44.11(1)(b). The appeal was dismissed on 10 April 2025.

The consequential issues were whether Ms Rooney’s appeal costs should be reduced because two arguments in her Respondent’s Notice failed, who should conduct the summary assessment, and whether Ms Vardy should make a payment on account.

1. Costs of the appeal. Ms Rooney was entirely successful in opposing the appeal. The unsuccessful arguments occupied only a small part of the hearing and fell away because the court upheld the decision below for the reasons given by the Senior Costs Judge. The late filing of the Respondent’s Notice was immaterial because no objection had been made. Ms Rooney therefore recovered 100% of her appeal costs on the standard basis.
2. Assessment of costs. The court considered that CPR 44.6(1) and PD44, paragraph 9.7 supported the view that summary assessment is ordinarily conducted by the judge who awarded the costs. The court did not need to decide whether a judge uninvolved in the hearing could ever conduct such an assessment. In this case, because Mr Justice Cavanagh had sat with Acting Senior Costs Judge Rowley as assessor, and because the assessor had the relevant expertise and the greatest familiarity with the matter, Judge Rowley was directed to conduct the summary assessment. Detailed assessment and summary assessment were materially different exercises.
3. Payment on account. The wording of CPR 44.2(8) limits the presumption of a payment on account to cases where costs are subject to detailed assessment. It does not apply where summary assessment has been ordered. Summary assessment is intended to secure recovery shortly after the hearing, so there was neither scope nor need for a payment on account.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): The costs appeal was dismissed on 10 April 2025. This ruling determined the consequential costs issues.