REBEKAH Vardy has won the first round of her libel battle against Coleen Rooney after she was accused of leaking stories about Rooney’s private life to the media.

Mrs Rooney, 34, accused Mrs Vardy, 38, of leaking “false stories” about her private life last October after carrying out a months-long “sting operation” which saw her dubbed “Wagatha Christie”.

The wife of former England star Wayne Rooney claimed fellow footballer’s wife Mrs Vardy shared fake stories she had posted on her personal Instagram account with The Sun newspaper.

On Friday, the High Court ruled the post “clearly identified” her as being “guilty of the serious and consistent breach of trust”.

Mrs Rooney wrote on Instagram and Twitter: “I have saved and screenshotted all the original stories which clearly show just one person has viewed them.

“It’s ……………. Rebekah Vardy’s account.”

Mrs Vardy, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, denies the accusations and is suing Mrs Rooney for damages for libel.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Warby ruled that the “natural and ordinary” meaning of Mrs Rooney’s posts was that Mrs Vardy had “regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower of Ms Rooney’s personal Instagram account by secretly informing The Sun newspaper of Ms Rooney’s private posts and stories”.

Announcing his decision, the judge said that the meaning he had determined was “substantially the same as the claimant’s meaning”.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Warby said Mrs Rooney’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.”

The judge disagreed with Mrs Rooney’s claim that using multiple ellipses in the infamous final line of the post – “It’s…………….Rebekah Vardy’s account” – diluted the meaning.

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.”

He also rejected Mrs Rooney’s contention that she simply referred to Mrs Vardy’s Instagram account rather than Mrs Vardy herself.