Coleen Rooney ‘comes to a temporary truce with Rebekah Vardy after peace talks broke down’

View
comments

Coleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy have reached a temporary truce on Friday amid their ongoing legal battle, according to reports on Friday. 

The legal team for the WAG, 34, are said to be ‘working around the clock’ to find a resolution between the pair, after peace talks between them broke down earlier in the day.

It has now been reported that Coleen and Jamie Vardy’s wife, 38, have agreed to have further negotiations together in a few weeks, in an attempt to avoid their case going to the High Court.

A source speaking to The Sun said: ‘After no resolution was found on Thursday, both parties agreed to roll over the talks into another meeting in the coming weeks.

‘But just a few hours later one of Coleen’s legal team had a brainwave and called Becky’s legal team for a late meeting to discuss their thoughts.

‘It came to nothing but it shows how keen Coleen is to settle. Her team is working round the clock to find a resolution. But as she won’t apologise, it’s not going to be an easy negotiation.’

MailOnline has contacted Coleen and Rebekah’s representatives for comment. 

Earlier in the day, it was revealed by MailOnline that Coleen was under pressure from close friends to ‘call it quits and apologise’ to Rebekah and help end their bitter ‘Wagatha Christie’ battle.

The wife of former England captain Wayne Rooney has until Monday to agree to a deal with her rival or face a costly battle in the High Court.

Peace talks between the WAGs broke down during a face-to-face meeting with their legal teams, leaving both women frustrated at the impasse.

Now Coleen is being pressed by her inner circle to say sorry and say she regrets accusing Rebekah of leaking stories about her to the press.

She has already offered Rebekah a make or break offer to ‘agree to disagree’ over the pair’s row.

However, sources said that Rebekah is demanding an apology from her rival and unless one is received the case is likely to result in a costly High Court case.

Rebekah, who is appearing in TV’s Dancing on Ice, has told Coleen and her legal team that she did not leak stories and her rival has no proof.

But Coleen is finding saying sorry to Rebekah a difficult move and the pair have been told they must inform a judge after the weekend whether mediation has worked.

A source said: ‘Rebekah is digging her heels in and wants Coleen to say sorry.

‘But Coleen has refused and she has been told by her best friends that if she does say sorry, it could lead to a resolution and bring the dispute to an end.

‘A judge has to be told after the weekend whether the peace talks they had in mediation meetings has worked.

‘If they haven’t – and Coleen has been told she holds the key – then the two women’s lawyers will have a case management conference on March 26 which will be a big step towards it all going to the High Court.’

On Thursday, Rebekah and Coleen met in an intense face-to-face mediation on Zoom as they attempted to settle their high-profile dispute, but failed to come to a resolution.

Proceedings began with both sides reading out a statement and then breaking off into separate virtual rooms as the mediator spoke to them and their legal representatives independently.

However the meeting ended with both sides failing to come to a resolution.

The mediation was ordered by a High Court judge at a hearing last November, with both women given a deadline of February 8 to try and reach agreement.

If they remain in deadlock, then the matter will be settled at a full trial expected to take place later this year.

Rebekah launched a £1m High Court libel action after Coleen accused her in an October 2019 Instagram post of being the source of leaks to the media.

Going into the crunch talks, it was revealed that Coleen has handed Rebekah an ‘olive branch’ and made her an offer to ‘agree to disagree’ as they head into mediation.

The row between the high-profile WAGS erupted after Coleen revealed that she had set a trap to see who was responsible for them, which earned her the nickname ‘Wagatha Christie’ as the row between the two Wags simmered, culminating in legal action.

In November, the High Court ruled Coleen’s post ‘clearly identified’ Rebekah as being ‘guilty of the serious and consistent breach of trust’ – but minutes later she hit back with a statement via her representative, saying she was ‘keen’ to hear what her rival has to say in court.

The ruling related to the wording in the final sentence of the post, with the former reality star claiming she simply referred to Rebekah’s Instagram account.

But the judge said an ordinary reader would not take the word ‘account’ to ‘indicate that she remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was’.

He also disagreed with her claim that using multiple ellipses in the final line diluted the meaning.

This means the court has no doubt as to who the accusation was made against – Rebekah – which will be a consideration if the libel case goes to trial this year.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Warby said Coleen’s message was ‘a considered post, using wording composed with some care’, adding: ‘It would be clear to the ordinary reader from the outset that it was meant seriously and intended to convey a message of some importance.’

He wrote: ‘Indeed, the element of suspense introduced by the multiple dots seems to me designed to raise expectations of a dramatic revelation.

‘It tends to emphasise the importance of the name that is then provided. It would be a poor denouement if all that was being said was that the named individual was to be suspected of the wrongdoing but it might be someone else.

‘The reader is told straight away that the message is about bad behaviour by ‘someone who I trusted’. The post then takes the form of a ‘whodunnit’.’

He added: ‘I certainly do not think that the ordinary reader would take that single word (account), albeit repeated, to indicate that Mrs Rooney remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer

‘There is nothing in these words, apart from the word ‘account’, that in any way suggests that the behaviour of which Mrs Rooney is complaining might have been carried out by anyone other than the account holder, Mrs Vardy.’