Court rules on meaning of infamous "Wagatha Christie" post

In November 2020, the Media and Communications Court considered, as a preliminary issue, the meaning of allegedly defamatory statements about Rebekah Vardy posted on social media by Coleen Rooney. In doing so, it ruled that Ms Rooney had identified Ms Vardy personally in the statements: although they referred to the latter's Instagram account as opposed to her directly, it was held that an ordinary social media user would discern little difference between the two. We consider the Court's findings, and the tensions they illustrate between precise words used and overall context in determining meaning in defamation claims, below.

Background

In October 2019, in a headline-grabbing scandal popularly dubbed "Wagatha Christie", Ms Rooney posted allegations on social media that information from her personal Instagram account was being leaked to a UK newspaper. Her post explained that she had been testing the source of the leak by posting false stories on Instagram and restricting access to certain individuals to determine whether these stories would be reported in the press. Ms Rooney's public Instagram post, reposted on Twitter, came to a dramatic conclusion about the source of the leak: "it's................Rebekah Vardy's account".

Ms Vardy issued libel proceedings against Ms Rooney on 12 June 2020, claiming damages, an injunction and an order that Rooney publish a summary of the Court's judgment. The parties agreed that the Court should consider the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of as a preliminary issue.

The Court's Decision

As Warby J noted in his judgment, determining meaning at a preliminary stage in libel proceedings is now "the norm". It is "almost always helpful", being a quick and convenient way to narrow the issues in dispute and establish at an early stage whether the defendant has any prospect of defence, or indeed whether there has been any defamation at all. Our previous commentary on Sakho v WADA also deals with this point.

As well as outlining the usual principles to be considered in determining meaning, Warby J reminds us that there are certain special characteristics of social media posts that must be taken into account. They are intended to be consumed quickly and readers do not engage in lengthy analysis of a post's particular meaning - their reactions are immediate and temporary. As such, the test of the objective reasonable reader becomes even more important.

Warby J agreed with Ms Vardy that in her social media posts, Ms Rooney had clearly accused Ms Vardy of personally leaking private content to a newspaper without Ms Rooney's permission:

• Ms Rooney's post was careful and considered, unlike the "casual" or "conversational" posts one might usually expect on social media. The ordinary social media user would, he surmised, therefore consider that the post was intended to be serious and pay it additional attention.

• In true "whodunnit" style, the post set out the alleged wrongdoing and Ms Rooney's investigations before naming Ms Vardy in a dramatic conclusion. The ordinary reader would therefore conclude that Vardy was the perpetrator of the wrongdoing identified at the start of the post.

• Warby J specifically rejected Ms Rooney's argument that she identified Ms Vardy's account rather than Ms Vardy personally, which would dilute the seriousness of the allegations made. He explained that the ordinary reader would not attach much weight to "account" or think that Ms Rooney was suggesting Ms Vardy's account may have been used by someone else (even though that is, in theory, possible - particularly in the case of celebrities).

Comment

This decision highlights a tension when determining meaning between considering the specific drafting of the allegedly defamatory statement, and the ability to step back to look at those words in context of the publication as a whole.

The courts will, of course, always consider the construction of publications and the actual words used in detail. In reaching his findings, Warby J considered the structure of Ms Rooney's post, its various references to an individual and its silence as to the possibility of third-party interference with Ms Vardy's account. At the same time, however, potential defendants clearly cannot be overly reliant on scattering wording that may soften meaning throughout an otherwise defamatory publication to limit any potential damage - particularly, it seems, in the context of social media where the 'ordinary reasonable reader' test, and its ability to cut across express wording if the context so requires, is especially powerful. This acts as a reminder of the care that one must exercise when operating in the fast-moving and reactionary world of social media.

More generally, whilst there can be little doubt as to the time and costs benefits of the Court's willingness to determine meaning as a preliminary issue, in circumstances where meaning goes to the very heart of a defamation claim, it inevitably tips the scales strongly in favour of one party at an early stage: here, in the favour of Ms Vardy.  It will therefore be interesting to see whether, in both this and future defamation claims, the preliminary determination of meaning encourages early settlement.

You can read the full judgment in Vardy v Rooney here.

Simmons & Simmons has a dedicated reputation management team - if you have any questions about the issues raised in this article or any other reputation management questions, please get in touch with the contacts listed above.