Coleen Rooney set to release a tell-all documentary about court battle

Coleen Rooney is set to release a tell-all documentary about her court battle with Rebekah Vardy with ‘Wagatha Christie’ in the title despite her rival trademarking the phrase earlier this year

The legal beef between WAGS Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy had the nation transfixed last summer. And it appears to be far from over as hostilities are brewing over Mrs Rooney’s forthcoming three part big bucks tell all documentary about the affair.

The issue is that the show, made by Dorothy Street pictures for Disney +, is understood to have the title Wagatha Christie: Coleen’s Story.

However earlier this year Ms Vardy applied for a trademark on the phrase ‘Wagatha Christie’ which she was granted.

The view of her side is that Coleen isn’t allowed to use it – and neither is Disney +. As a result a final petty dispute is in view between the two women.

Yesterday the streaming giant announced that it was indeed on their slate for this autumn and titled: ‘Three part Coleen Rooney documentary (working title).’ However a source said that the words ‘Wagatha Christie’ are in the title.

Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy are pictured leaving the Royal Courts of Justice following the high-profile trial dubbed ‘Wagatha Christie’ in May last year

A source said: ‘Becky does hold the trademark and the fact is that Wagatha cannot be used unless she licenses it. They can’t use it and they are aware that they can’t use it. They are well aware.’

The documentary, scheduled for October, looks certain to heap embarrassment on Ms Vardy. It will tell the story from Coleen’s side – of how she came to suspect her fellow WAG of betraying confidences, how she proved it was Mrs Vardy’s account – and how she felt when she typed out that incendiary tweet ending: ‘It’s… Rebekah Vardy’s account.’

In that tweet in October 2019 she said that she had limited the number of people who could see her stories until only one account could – and still the leaks came.

She was dubbed ‘Wagatha Christie’ as her post went viral, forcing the return of Becky, then heavily pregnant with her fifth child, from a holiday in Dubai.

Becky denied she was responsible for the leaks and sued Coleen for libel, with the case eventually coming to court in May last year.

READ MORE: Magatha Christie! Vogue wins fight with Vanity Fair for the tell-all interview with Coleen Rooney after her victory over Rebekah Vardy 

However she lost her claim when the judge ruled in July that Coleen’s post was ‘substantially true’.

Justice Steyn said that it was ‘likely’ that her agent at the time, Caroline Watt, ‘undertook the direct act’ of passing information to The Sun newspaper.

The trial has been turned into a stage show titled ‘Vardy V Rooney: The Wagatha Christie trial’ and a two-part Channel 4 drama.

The trial included the deeply embarrassing disclosure of WhatsApp conversations between Becky and Caroline Watt in which Becky repeatedly called Coleen Rooney a ‘c***’ and added: ‘nasty b****… I’ve taken a big dislike to her! She thinks she’s amazing… Would love to leak those stories.’ Becky said that this message was about someone else.

Becky Vardy, 41, received the final tally of costs in April last year, amounting to a colossal £1.8million. Becky was told to pay Coleen an interim payment of £800,000 last autumn. She believes that the costs are inflated and intends to mount a legal challenge, hoping to get Coleen’s lawyers back to court to explain why the costs are so high.

In a statement, Coleen’s lawyers Brabners said: ‘Inevitably, the way in which a case is pursued has a direct impact on the costs actually incurred in running a case. One example of that concerns the fees for forensic IT experts. The IT experts’ job was to review the digital evidence provided to them. However, in a case whether the court has found that digital evidence was deliberately deleted or destroyed, the task of the IT expert expands considerably in order to chase down the relevant audit trails to seek to prove that evidence was deleted.’

Paul Lunt, head of litigation at law firm Brabners, said: ‘Costs budgets are produced at the very start of these cases, almost two years before the final decision in this case. They are merely ‘best guesses’ of the costs that are likely to be incurred if the case proceeds as expected. ‘Where a case develops in an extraordinary or unexpected manner, the costs will often increase substantially from what was originally envisaged. That goes for both parties and it would not surprise me if Mrs Vardy’s own costs ended up approaching something in the order of £4m.’

Coleen Rooney and the manager of EFL Championship club Derby County and former England footballer Wayne Rooney leave the Royal Courts of Justice following the second day of the libel trial last year

Rebekah Vardy and her footballer husband Jamie pictured leaving the Royal Court of Justice on May 17 last year

Mrs Vardy has reinvented herself as a TV presenter and fronted Rebekah Vardy: Jehovah’s Witnesses and Me on Channel 4 which reflected on her own experiences growing up in the religion and saw her interview others.

Next up she is considering a project focusing on homelessness as she herself was homeless in her teens after being sexually abused.

She is also hoping to make a film about female prisoners and their experiences, with the possibility of filming inside a prison. Meanwhile Coleen has already granted an interview to Vogue magazine at home and will be the October cover girl.

Husband Wayne is in America as he manages Washington-based DC United.

The phrase Wagatha Christie, which was coined by comedian Dan Atkinson in 2019, was trademarked by the company London Entertainment Inc Ltd.

The trademark covers broadcasting, clothing, non-alcoholic beverages, education and beauty and she now has the right to approve its usage by others. A source told The Sun in April: ‘This trademark is Becky’s two fingers to Coleen and all the misery associated with ‘Wagatha Christie’. Becky is shrewd and knew people would try to cash in on the phrase.’She now owns the UK trademark and would consider expanding it to other territories if she thought it was needed. ‘If someone wants to print the logo on a mug, for example, they would be infringing the trademark if they didn’t ask permission. It is a legal grey area in some respects, however, and will be done on a case-by-case basis.’

Source: Read Full Article