Coleen Rooney ‘didn’t probe if husband Wayne or her own team were behind Wagatha Christie leak’, claims Rebekah Vardy

COLEEN Rooney never investigated whether husband Wayne or her own team were behind the Wagatha Christie leak, Rebekah Vardy claims.

The mum-of-five, 39, launched a fresh attack on Coleen, 35, after she accused her of leaking stories to the press.

Rebekah accused Coleen in an amended court statement of not investigating whether the stories could have come from her own "entourage".

She also claimed her rival Wag didn't probe if husband Wayne could be behind the leak.

And Rebekah continued to deny claims made by Coleen that only the Dancing on Ice star would have access to her own Instagram account.

The statement says: "The Defendant [Coleen] was aware that the Claimant's [Rebekah's] agent would have access to the Claimant's Instagram account.

"And that her other members would have agents who had similar access to other accounts, just as the Defendant's agent and PR team have access to the Defendant's social media accounts".

The warring wags are embroiled in a lengthy libel case that is due to play out in public at the High Court next year.

Coleen earlier this month won the latest round of the explosive saga - with Rebekah's husband Jamie ordered to hand his devices over to be searched.

Her lawyers launched a blistering attack over disclosure of evidence and accused Rebekah of "double standards".

They said she had requested data from Coleen's devices, which would also extend to her representatives, agents, friends and family, but argued Rebekah had not done the same.

In a victory for Coleen's team, Master Eastman ruled their devices should be searched for relevant evidence as Leicester City striker Jamie was dragged into the row.

He added: "In order for the experts to explore what has gone on by whom, when and where they need to have access to more than just the personal devices of Mrs Vardy and Mrs Rooney.

"For the purposes of instructing the experts I am satisfied their devices are up for grabs for inspection."

SPIRALLING COSTS

Spiralling legal fees have previously been branded “grotesque” by Coleen given the current climate.

The court heard Rebekah's overall proposed budget is £837,735, while Coleen's is £537,029.

Of this, Rebekah is planning to spend £450,000 on solicitors and £388,000 on barristers.

Coleen by comparison is spending £388,000 on solicitors and £306,000 on barristers

But the escalating costs are likely to have dropped after Rebekah won a bid to scrap parts of Coleen's defence.

The decision to rule in her favour is likely to shorten the libel trial to five days - saving her £200,000 in costs.

The mum-of-five had fought to get a "list of issues" in Coleen's defence thrown out on the grounds they are irrelevant or "wrong".

And the High Court made the judgement to strike out parts of Coleen's 50-page defence after they were ruled to be irrelevant or too weak to succeed at trial.

But the judge ruled against Rebekah's plea for a summary judgement on one of the three stories Coleen planted in an Instagram post regarding her "TV plans".

'WASTE OF TIME'

In her judgment, Mrs Justice Steyn dismissed a claim by Coleen that Rebekah showed "publicity seeking behaviour" when she sat behind her during an England game at Euro 2016.

She also said the argument was irrelevant, adding "it would be a waste of time and resources" for the claim to continue.

Other sections of Coleen's defence were removed because they were "of such limited and peripheral relevance".

Coleen turned detective in October 2019 and accused Rebekah of sharing stories from her personal Instagram account.

In the infamous post, Coleen said she posted a string of false stories via her Instagram account with restricted access to see if they appeared in the media, which they did.

She then said the fake stories had only been viewed by one person, and ended dramatically: “It’s . . . Rebekah Vardy’s account.”

Jamie Vardy's wife Rebekah, who was heavily pregnant at the time, denied the allegations and claimed several people had access to her account.