Wagatha Christie: Five takeaways from the Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney verdict

Rebekah Vardy has lost her high court Wagatha Christie libel case against Coleen Rooney in what many have called a spectacular legal own goal.

As with all libel cases, the ball was very much in Mrs Rooney's half, with the onus on her and her legal team to prove her Instagram post in which she accused Mrs Vardy's account of leaking stories was as true, or honest opinion, or in the public interest.

But in a scathing judgement, Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed Mrs Vardy's case, saying it was necessary to treat her evidence with "very considerable caution".Here are five takeaways from the damning judgment.

Caroline Watt knew her evidence was untrueMrs Justice Steyn said Mrs Vardy chose not to call her agent Ms Watt to give evidence partly because she knew her evidence “would be shown to be untrue”.

Ms Watt had been due to give evidence in support of Mrs Vardy, however, she withdrew her evidence pre-trial, with the court told it was due to health concerns.It was probably not an accident the mobile phone ended up in Davy Jones's lockerOn the third day of the high-profile libel claim, the court heard how Caroline Watt had lost her mobile phone in the North Sea just days after a judge said it should be searched.

In her judgment on Friday, the judge said: “The timing is striking…the likelihood that the loss Ms Watt describes was accidental is slim.”

Mrs Vardy was also accused of deleting WhatsApp message on purpose. She had claimed they had vanished after a data crash.

The judge continued: “It is likely that the WhatsApp chat between herself and Mrs Vardy, as well as exchanges with journalists, was available on Ms Watt’s phone when she was advised very shortly after the reveal post that such evidence must be preserved.”

She added: “In my judgment, it is likely that Ms Vardy deliberately deleted her WhatsApp chat with Ms Watt, and that Ms Watt deliberately dropped her phone in the sea.”

Mrs Vardy was offended by the leaking accusations even though she played a part

Mrs Justice Steyn said there was “a degree of self-deception” on Mrs Vardy’s part about her role in disclosing information.

She said: “Although significant parts of Mrs Vardy’s evidence were not credible, my assessment is that she is genuinely offended by the accusation made against her by Mrs (Coleen) Rooney in the reveal post.

“However, that is not because she was not involved in disclosing information from the private Instagram account: I have found that she was."

The judge continued: “Mrs Vardy’s part in disclosing information to The Sun was, it seems to me, unthinking rather than part of a considered and concerted business practice.

“Consequently, there has been a degree of self-deception on her part regarding the extent to which she was involved, as well as a degree of justified resentment at the exaggerated way in which her role has at times been presented during the litigation.”

Rebekah Vardy positioned herself behind Coleen Rooney at a Euro 2016 match so she could be papped

During the trial, the model and television personality branded a suggestion she deliberately moved seats at one of the matches during the Euro 2016 tournament to sit behind Mrs Rooney in order to attract more publicity as “ridiculous,” but the judge did not agree.

"It is highly likely that Ms Vardy ended up sitting directly behind Ms Rooney, in circumstances where that was not her allocated seat, due to a deliberate choice to put herself in the same shot," the judge concluded. "I do not accept she would have happily blurred into the background," Mrs Justice Steyn concluded.It was "likely" Rebekah Vardy knew about - and condoned - the passing on of information

In her ruling, Mrs Justice Steyn said it was “likely” that Ms Watt, “undertook the direct act” of passing the information to The Sun.

But she added the evidence "clearly shows, in my view" Mrs Vardy knew of and condoned the leaks, accusing her of "actively engaging in it by directing Ms Watt to the private Instagram account."