Coleen Rooney stepped out in Cheshire on Wednesday as she was seen for the first time since her Zoom mediation hearing with Rebekah Vardy earlier this month.
The wife of retired footballer Wayne Rooney, 34, brushed aside the drama to stock up on groceries for her family at her local Waitrose supermarket.
Coleen and the Dancing On Ice star, 38, attempted to settle their dispute in a bid to avoid a High Court showdown, but failed to come to a resolution after the Liverpudlian accused her former friend of leaking stories about her to the press.
Keeping busy: Coleen Rooney stepped out in Cheshire on Wednesday as she was seen for the first time since her Zoom mediation hearing with Rebekah Vardy earlier this month
Cutting a typically chic figure, the mother-of-four sported a Prada jacket with black leggings and fluffy boots.
The author brought a hint of glamour to the store as she accessorised with a pair of diamond stud earrings.
A high bun ensured her tresses were away from her face, while light strokes of minimal make-up were sufficient enough to highlight her naturally radiant complexion.
Parenthood duties: The wife of retired footballer Wayne Rooney, 34, brushed aside the drama to stock up on groceries for her family at her local Waitrose supermarket
Talks breaking down: Coleen and the Dancing On Ice star (pictured), 38, attempted to settle their dispute in a bid to avoid a High Court showdown, but failed to come to a resolution
Low-key style: Cutting a typically chic figure, the mother-of-four sported a Prada jacket with black leggings and fluffy boots
All in the details: The author brought a hint of glamour to the store as she accessorised with a pair of diamond stud earrings
Zoom 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.
The former columnist reportedly tried to reach out to the brunette after another round of failed talks to avoid a costly legal battle.
However it’s thought that she saw the mediation as a ‘waste of time’ as TV star Becky continues to demand she apologise for her fierce accusation.
Coleen’s attempts for a peace deal with Rebekah are said to have been denied as the mother-of-five continues to demand she apologises for accusing her of leaking stories to the press.
Staying refreshed: Large bottles of water were featured in her shopping list
Ready? The Alder Hey patron made sure she took away all her belongings as she departed the store
Unfortunate: It’s thought that she saw the mediation as a ‘waste of time’ as TV star Becky continues to demand she apologise for her fierce accusation
A source told The Sun: ‘Nothing’s changed. There’s been no progress, no chink of light at the end of the tunnel — and no prospect of avoiding court. As far as Coleen’s concerned mediation was a waste of time.
‘Coleen won’t apologise. She’s convinced she’s right about Becky leaking stories to the press and thinks she’s made a reasonable offer. She refuses to do another mediation meeting and is now preparing for court.’
It’s thought that lawyers for both stars have reported to the court with an update on the mediation talks.
Last Friday, it was reported that the pair reached a temporary truce, after peace talks between them broke down earlier in the day.
Legal woes: The former columnist reportedly tried to reach out to brunette Becky after another round of failed talks to avoid a costly legal battle
Off to her next destination: She loaded her purchases into the boot of her huge car before heading off
Less is more: A high bun ensured her tresses were away from her face, while light strokes of minimal make-up were sufficient enough to highlight her naturally radiant complexion
Peace talks between the WAGs broke down during a face-to-face meeting via Zoom with their legal teams, leaving both women frustrated at the impasse.
The identity of the mediator is confidential but according to legal experts, it was likely to be a senior barrister, who was on board to step in between the two parties if discussions got too heated.
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.
Rebekah has told Coleen and her legal team that she did not leak stories and her rival has no proof.
Where it all began: The Norwich native was accused by her former friend of leaking false stories about her personal life to the media in 2019
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 told MailOnline: ‘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.’
Drama: Passions remain high between the two Wags, with Rebekah adamant that Coleen should delete her accusatory post (pictured with husband Jamie in 2017)
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.
Ongoing: Coleen (pictured with Wayne in 2016) said she discovered the alleged betrayal by carrying out a months-long ‘sting operation’
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.’