Rosenblatt
  • About
    • Memery Crystal
    • Investors
  • Services

    Services

    Rosenblatt is a disputes powerhouse. Competitive in the best sense, our teams provide incisive specialist expertise and collaborate closely with one another to meet our clients’ needs across the full spectrum of their activities.

    • Dispute Resolution
    • Construction, Engineering and Energy
    • Corporate Investigations
    • Debt Recovery
    • DLT, Digital Assets, and Tokenisation
    • Financial Crime
    • Financial Services
    • Insolvency & Financial Restructuring
    • International Arbitration
    • Probate & Wills
    • Serious & General Crime
    • Tax
    • Non-Contentious & Advisory
  • Insight
  • Events
  • Group Litigation
    • Amazon Legal Action
    • Property Investment Scheme Claims
    • Apple Class Action
  • Contact

Wagatha Costie and the Detailed Assessment

24th October 2024

It is a rare day when the question of legal costs becomes entangled with celebrity and bursts into the public consciousness. Stays at Nobu! Ransacking mini-bars! Triples all round! The latter at least in respect of legal costs, expanding from the budgeted £540,779 to the incurred £1.8m. For those of us familiar with seeing peoples’ eyes glaze over before we have got to the end of the phrase “costs subject to detailed assessment if not agreed”, the latest instalment in the Wagatha Christie libel trial between famous footballing consorts Colleen Rooney and Rebekah Vardy is heart-warming. We are delighted to be able to gift to the wider world notions of costs budgets, line-by-line assessments, and if there was a good reason to depart (beyond that night’s menu at Nobu).

Everyone knows that, in 2022, Mrs Rooney won her libel action against Mrs Vardy, having engaged in sufficient detective work when trying to find out who had leaked news about her to the press for the case to warrant its nickname. What has become clear since is that, with Mrs Rooney awarded her legal costs, Mrs Vardy has refused to accept that they had been appropriately incurred: the “agreed” part of the above phrase. With Mrs Rooney seeking £1.8m against a budget of £541,000, this is no surprise. Turning to the phrase’s other part, the question of how much Mrs Vardy should compensate Mrs Rooney for her the money she spent on the case – £541,000, £1.8m or somewhere in between – has become subject to detailed assessment. In other words, a costs judge has been tasked with deciding how much of her legal spend Mrs Rooney should recover from Mrs Vardy.

In High Court litigation, costs are subject to stringent management. Mrs Rooney’s budget – setting out how much she thought overall the case would cost her – would have been approved by the Court at an early stage in the proceedings; Mrs Vardy also would have prepared a budget.

Everyone also knows that litigation can be unpredictable, and costs can increase as the matter progresses. As such, a party can, at any time, seek to update their budget, which the Court may or may not approve depending on how reasonable the higher costs sought are deemed to be. At the end of the claim, if the successful party attempts to recover a sum higher than their budget, the assessment will get very detailed indeed. They need to be able to show they had a good reason to depart from the figures previously included. If they cannot, a party who thought they had won the case may find themselves receiving much less of their legal spend than expected.  

Not all that a lawyer may need to do to bring a case to success can be recovered from a defeated opponent; a sum of unrecoverable costs does not mean those costs should not have been incurred. Context is everything. Should a lawyer stay at Nobu, or have a little refreshment from a hotel mini-bar? Maybe, maybe not. Should those costs be recoverable from the losing party? Maybe, maybe not. All must be justified (and justifiable) before the costs judge, else the metaphoric red line is drawn through that entry, and the client is left holding the bill.

We shall no doubt hear more about the Wagatha Costies next year when the matter moves from the preliminary issues now dealt with to the assessment of whether or not each item of costs incurred – of which there may be many thousands – should be recovered.   

In the meantime, those of us who deal with questions of costs budgeting and detailed assessment are happily surprised to see them given the full big budget, news-busting, glamour treatment. Triples all round! Just please not from the mini-bar.


Rosenblatt has a wealth of dispute resolution experience and is well-placed to support and advise companies and individuals. For enquiries, please contact author: Legal Director, Nick Leigh.

For further details on Rosenblatt’s Dispute Resolution expertise, please see our website: https://www.rosenblatt-law.co.uk/services/.

Post navigation

Rosenblatt settles High Court action on behalf of sports and leisure businesses
Key Takeaways – November Breakfast Briefing: Staking and Institutional Crypto Assets

Categories

  • Articles
  • News
  • Videos

Topics

  • Banking & Finance
  • Competition & Regulatory
  • Corporate
  • Dispute Resolution
  • DLT, Cryptocurrencies and Crypto Assets
  • Employment
  • Financial Crime
  • Financial Services
  • Insolvency & Financial Restructuring
  • International Arbitration
  • Investigations
  • IP/Technology/Media
  • Real Estate
  • Tax
Rosenblatt
  • +44 (0) 20 7955 0880
  • info@rosenblatt-law.co.uk

Helpful Links

  • Anti-Modern Slavery Statement
  • Complaints Policy
  • Diversity & Equality
  • Interest
  • Pricing
  • Subscribe to our Mailing List

SRA No. 820215, authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Ce Logo
Uk Top Tier Firm 2026

Rosenblatt is a trading name of RBG Legal Services Limited, a company registered in England and Wales (with company number 13287062) and which is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under SRA No. 820215. A list of the directors of RBG Legal Services Limited, together with a list of those persons who are designated as partners of Rosenblatt, is available for inspection at the registered office of the company at 165 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2DY.

Rosenblatt uses the word “partner” to refer to a senior employee or consultant. However, Rosenblatt is not a partnership and the use of the term “partner” does not create or imply a partnership amongst or between any of its employees or consultants.

© 2025 Rosenblatt

  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Terms & Conditions

Website by Brighter*IR

link

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

You can find out more about which cookies we are using or switch them off in .

Rosenblatt
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookies should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

Performance cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site.

Please enable Strictly Necessary Cookies first so that we can save your preferences!

Cookie Policy

More information about our Cookie Policy.