Practice Direction 20 from social media to the court room
For those conducting litigation who may have to make an application to join a party to proceedings and the impact of Practice Direction 20 upon delays in making that further application. This case has widened the scope who takes in an interest in court costs with the readership of the ‘red tops’ – could Instagram be reporting from the RCJ?!!!!
Vardy v Rooney & Anor [2022] EWHC 304 (QB) (14 February 2022)
The Hon. Mrs Justice Steyn DBE recently held a hearing the Royal Courts of Justice on the 8th and 9th February 2022 to listen to the latest submissions in the Vardy v Rooney saga that began back in 2019.
Coleen Rooney, the wife of Wayne, is claiming Rebekah Vardy the wife of Jamie, leaked fake stories to the newspapers by Vardy’s Instagram account. The row made the press with Coleen being dubbed “Wagatha Christie.” On 9 October 2019 Coleen accused Rebekah Vardy of leaking details about her personal life on Instagram and Twitter.
In 2021 Mrs Justice Steyn ordered that parts of Coleen Rooney’s defence be thrown out in the libel battle and ordered Vardy to pay £10,500 towards Coleen’s costs.
Fast forward to 2022 and now Coleen is ordered to pay £65,000 in the latest round of the WAG’s at war saga after the lawyers for Coleen sought permission to bring an “additional claim” against Rebekah’s agent Caroline Watt for the misuse of private information as it was alleged she had acted on Rebekah’s instructions or had given her approval.
Mrs Justice Steyn on being presented by the application summarised the matters for determination:
- The defendant’s Part 20 / joinder application.
- The defendant’s application to amend.
- The defendant’s application for further information.
- The defendant’s disclosure application.
- The claimant’s disclosure application.
- The defendant’s Instagram application.
The history of the proceedings was recapped in the judgment – from the posts published on 9 October 2019 with the claim being issued on 12 June 2020, throughout the proceedings to the latest application made on 16 December 2021.
The scope of Practice Direction 20 was given consideration by Mrs Justice Steyn with regards to the defendant’s Part 20 / joinder application – which led to the conclusion of a failure to act within the Pre-Action Protocol as the application to join a party had been delayed. The usual time to make an application to be joined as a party is when a party’s defence is submitted to the court. The directions questionnaire when filed made no reference to a Part 20 was to be made.
Mrs Justice Steyn confirms in her judgment how a Part 20 application should operate within the scope of the Practice Direction with regards to time consideration and disclosure of evidence.
The next stage of the WAG’s at war battle will return to court in May 2022 when Rooney can try to prove it was Rebakah who leaked stories to The Sun Newspaper as opposed to anyone else. I doubt Instagram will be reporting the outcome of other costs cases in the near future.
This case sets out that to join a party is usually made at the same time the defence is filed at court – any application after this time then permission of the court needs to be sought.
Whilst this case looks on the finer points of Part 20 applications / counterclaims a whole host of the CPR has been tested covering the Pre-Action Protocol, CPR3.1, CPR Part 18 and Part 24. The case of Coll v Floreat Merchant Banking Ltd [2014] EWHC 1741 (QB) acting as a starting point with regards to the Part 20 rules.
Throughout all stages of proceedings PIC can provide advice on the costs consequences of the delays in making an application and provide assistance with applications for relief from Sanctions – with the overriding regard to acting promptly when an issue arises.
Adrian Hawley
Head of Development and Strategic Engagement
17.02.22