Of course when Vardy said that there were no messages between her and Watt on Vardy's phone, the obvious thing was to get discovery of the messages on Watt's phone. Back to the judgment:

67. It is also highly pertinent that the full WhatsApp chat between Ms Vardy and Ms Watt
is only unavailable because of the conjunction of the loss of data on 15 October 2019
and the loss of the same WhatsApp chat by Ms Watt. In her first statement, Ms Watt
stated:
“It is the case that I accidentally dropped my phone while I was
on a boat trip in August this year. This was a genuine accident
which happened during a family holiday to Scotland. I have a
weakness in my hand and was on a boat trip with my family. I
was standing up in choppy waters holding my phone and I
dropped my phone when the boat hit a wave. This was an
uninsured phone and its loss was extremely inconvenient and
expensive for me.

68. This evidence has not been tested in cross-examination. I accept that a person who is
not engaged in litigation may well choose to delete their WhatsApp messages routinely
(as Mr McLoughlin described doing), for example to maintain storage capacity on their
device. But the evidence indicates that Ms Watt had not deleted her WhatsApp
messages in 2019. On 25 November 2020, Ms Watt sent Ms Vardy two screenshots of
WhatsApp messages between them from 16 August 2019 (including the images of Ms
Rooney’s posts). There is no reason that Ms Watt would have taken a screenshot of
these messages prior to the start of the litigation. Nor is there any reason why Ms Watt
would have retained these messages while routinely deleting all others. Ms Watt sent
these messages when she did because she evidently considered they would assist Ms
Vardy’s case. It is likely that the WhatsApp chat between herself and Ms 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.

69. The incident in which Ms Watt’s phone is said to have been lost at sea occurred in
August 2021. On 4 August 2021, the CCMC had taken place at which an order requiring
her device to be inspected had been made. The timing is striking. In my judgment, even
taking this evidence on its own, the likelihood that the loss Ms Watt describes was
accidental is slim.

Of course Watt claimed mental stress and declined to give evidence for Vardy, presumably after Watt realised how she would be torn to shreds in cross-examination.

It is incredibale that Vardy persisted with the trial when all this became clear weeks before it started. Her lawyers must have been telling her in the strongest terms that it is difficult to win when you and your main witness have lost credibility. They would have had to make that very clear or risk getting sued by Vardy after she lost the case.
If Vardy had pulled out at that point, her total bill would have been about £250k as opposed to the £3m she now has to pay.

Vardy got caught out again, this time no tech involved - just contradicted by a more credible and independent witness.

87. Given its relevance to my assessment of credibility, I permitted the defendant to adduce
the evidence of Ms Harpreet Robertson who worked for the FA during Euro 2016 and
the World Cup 2018 as a Ticketing Manager/Family Liaison Officer. Ms Robertson
explained that the FA had taken the view that the photographs of players’ partners sat
together during the 2006 World Cup had detracted from coverage of the tournament
and so the FA’s practice since then, and in particular during Euro 2016, was to “spread
out” the partners of players, “to prevent the press from taking group shots that garnered
more public interest”.

88. Ms Robertson’s evidence was that the match Ms Vardy was referring to was between
England and Wales on 16 June 2016. Ms Robertson kept a record of who had been
allocated tickets and where they ought to have been seated. For the match on 16 June
2016, Ms Rooney had been allocated seats 1-6 on the 8th row. Ms Robertson’s practice
was to reserve some seats at the back of the section for herself and FA security “to
ensure we could oversee and look after those in our section, particularly the more high
profile attendees such as Coleen and her children”. For this match that meant reserving
seats two rows behind Ms Rooney. Ms Vardy and her five guests had been allocated
seats several rows in front of Ms Rooney and about 15-20 seats to her left (when looking
at the pitch) (seats 20-25 on the 5th row, or thereabouts). Ms Rooney and her children
sat in their allocated seats before Ms Vardy and her guests sat down. About 10 minutes
before kick-off, when Ms Robertson went to her reserved seat, she found that two of
Ms Vardy’s guests were sat in the seats reserved for herself and FA security, and Ms
Vardy was sat in the row in front of them, immediately behind Ms Rooney. Ms
Robertson did not ask Ms Vardy to move to her allocated seat, but she did ask Ms
Vardy’s guests to move from the seats reserved for Ms Robertson and FA security.
They refused to do so, expressing themselves rudely and abusively, and Ms Robertson
decided to let them remain where they were and find herself an alternative seat.

89. Ms Vardy disputed Ms Robertson’s evidence, stating that it was “nonsense”. Ms
Robertson had, she said, taken an instant dislike to her for no apparent reason. She
denied that she had sat behind Ms Rooney to enable Splash News to get photographs
of herself and Ms Rooney in the same shot.

90. On 24 June 2016, Ms Vardy contacted Ms Rooney regarding press coverage to the
effect that “apparently I had moved seats intentionally at one of the games to sit behind
you because that's where the camera focus would be!” She stated that Ms Rooney’s
agency had been in touch with hers to say that the reports had not come from Ms
Rooney. It is clear from the exchange that Ms Rooney had not seen the coverage and
thought nothing of it at the time.

91. Ms Robertson is an independent witness who would have nothing to gain from coming
to court to give false evidence, and whose evidence was clear, consistent and came
across as reliable. Subject to the caveat that it seems to me that following the behaviour
of Ms Vardy’s guests at Euro 2016, Ms Vardy’s impression that Ms Robertson had
taken a dislike to her was probably accurate, I accept Ms Robertson’s evidence and
reject Ms Vardy’s evidence on this matter. At the time, Ms Watt had made a concerted
effort to secure extensive press coverage of Ms Vardy, including a column in The Sun
during Euro 2016. In her piece reporting on the match against Wales, Ms Vardy referred
to the fact that she had sat behind Ms Rooney and had spoken to her before the match,
and several of the photographs of the two of them were published. Those photographs
were attributed to Splash News. As the wife of the England captain, and having already
been in the public eye for about 14 years by then, Ms Rooney had a higher public profile
than Ms Vardy. 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. It is probable that this is what she was advised to
do by her PR agency. This would be consistent with her subsequent behaviour during
the World Cup 2018, and Ms Watt’s involvement in seeking to ensure that they were
able to obtain staged paparazzi photographs. In my judgment, Ms Vardy’s evidence on
this matter was not credible. I do not accept she would have happily blurred into the
background.

And Vardy caught out by the tech again here:

95. On 15 January 2017, following a WhatsApp message from Ms Rooney congratulating
Ms Vardy on the birth of her child, Ms Vardy asked Ms Rooney if she was on
Instagram. Ms Rooney responded that she had a private account. Ms Vardy requested
to become a follower and Ms Rooney accepted that request. Consequently, Ms Vardy
had access to the Private Instagram Account from January 2017.

96. Ms Vardy gave evidence that she gave Ms Watt “sole access to my Instagram account
when I was appearing in I’m a Celebrity. She did not have access before this date”. The
season of “I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here!” (‘I’m a Celebrity’) in which Ms Vardy
took part took place from November to December 2017. While appearing in the
programme, Ms Vardy had no access to her account or any other means of
communicating with the outside world and so Ms Watt was authorised to post material
on her behalf to “keep the public up to date with what was happening inside the jungle”.
On 14 November 2017, a tweet on Ms Vardy’s Twitter account said, “Our girl is in the
jungle for @imacelebrity @ITV Her social media is now being run by friends and
family”.

97. In cross-examination, Ms Vardy denied that Ms Watt had access to her Instagram
account from about July 2017, stating that she only gave her access “just before I went
in the jungle in November”. However, the accuracy of this statement has to be assessed
against the login data in respect of Ms Vardy’s Instagram account provided in Annex
C to Mr Blackband’s expert report (‘the login data’).

98. The login data shows access to Ms Vardy’s Instagram account on 29 July 2017 using
an iPhone 5s. The data shows that the IP address and geolocation from which Ms
Vardy’s Instagram account was accessed on 29 July 2017 was used on multiple further
occasionsfrom 31 October 2017 to 24 March 2020. As Ms Vardy changed her password
on 14 October 2019, logins before and after the change of password show this was an
authorised user. Ms Vardy’s evidence is that she gave access to her Instagram account
to Ms Watt and Adam Jones, and that her husband knew her password but did not log
on. The Claimant’s solicitor stated in correspondence that Mr Jones’ only access to Ms
Vardy’s Instagram account was on 27 September 2019 for a brief period to post some
content before logging out. This is consistent with the one-off login from a new IP
address and geolocation on that date, and the WhatsApp messages between Ms Vardy
and Ms Watt the same day. The only regular users were Ms Vardy and Ms Watt. As Ms
Vardy did not use an iPhone 5s, it is probable that the login on 29 July 2017 was by Ms
Watt.

99. The claimant’s expert, Mr Henderson, suggested that the first entry in the login data
was inconsistent and potentially unreliable because although in the column “iPhone
Model or OS” it states “iPhone 5s”, in the column headed “Device ID” it states
“android…”, and a device cannot be both an iPhone and an Android. Mr Blackband
agreed that it was an anomaly but he explained he had found a potential explanation.
He had tried to install Instagram onto an old iPhone 5C. It was not possible to install
the latest version of Instagram, but installing an earlier version had the consequence
that the data download showed the prefix “Android” in front of the device ID for the
iPhone 5C. Mr Blackband’s evidence shows that although it is anomalous for the device
ID for an iPhone to bear the prefix “Android”, the anomaly is one that occurs with older
iPhones on which older versions of Instagram are installed. It is likely that the login
data is accurate in showing that the login on 29 July 2017 was on an iPhone 5s.

Good expert tech evidence by Mr Blackband (I'd love to know his nickname from school - Jackson 5?) in para 99. He's Rooney's expert witness.

I've reached the end now. No more tech bombs but some of the undeleted messages between Vardy and Watt were damning (remember Vardy had had to accept that Watt was the one who passed the info on Rooney to The Sun, so Vardy's only
hope of winnng the case then was that Watt did that without Vardy's permission or knowledge.

185. Having formed the view that the likely source of the leaks was Ms Vardy, in around the
first week of February 2019 Ms Rooney removed Ms Vardy as one of her followers.
This prompted the following exchange between Ms Vardy and Ms Watt:
“[06/02/2019, 17:50:27] [CW]: Babe has Coleen unfollowed
you???
[06/02/2019, 17:50:54] [RV]: Omg [4 flushed/shocked face
emojis] I just saw wow x
[06/02/2019, 17:51:04] [RV]: What a cunt x
[06/02/2019, 17:51:10] [RV]: I’m going to message her x
[06/02/2019, 17:51:17] [CW]: I would leave it a while and then
in a few weeks message her and ask if you have offended her x
[06/02/2019, 17:51:56] [CW]: I bet because you had that cervical
cancer chat in the sun she has unfollowed you x
Approved Judgment Vardy v Rooney (6)
[06/02/2019, 17:52:05] [RV]: She thinks it’s me that’s been
doing stories on her! Of all the people on her Instagram ffs!
Leanne brown etc x
[06/02/2019, 17:52:13] [CW]: I know x
[06/02/2019, 17:52:27] [RV]: That cunt needs to get over
herself! X
[06/02/2019, 17:52:33] [RV]: That’s falling out material x
[06/02/2019, 17:52:59] [CW]: I wouldn’t say that though. If she
thinks you are looking at her page she’ll think it’s you
[06/02/2019, 17:53:31] [CW]: If you leave it a week or so and
then say you realised you hadn’t seen a post for ages then it won’t
look obvious x
[06/02/2019, 17:53:39] [RV]: Unless someone told her it came
from you? X
[06/02/2019, 17:55:03] [CW]: I don’t think anyone would. Andy
never would and I wouldn’t tell anyone but the sun and you
would think she’d message you if someone said your agent had
done that surely? x
[06/02/2019, 17:55:20] [CW]: Also the sun had that pic of her
car in America anyway, not that she knows that
[06/02/2019, 17:55:39] [RV]: I know I’m offended she thinks I
did it x
[06/02/2019, 17:55:56] [RV]: I mean ffs Dawn fucking ward is
still on there x”
The exchange continued with Ms Vardy and Ms Watt speculating that Ms Rooney had
merely guessed that she leaked a story to The Sun because of work she had done with
them.

186. Mr Tomlinson relies on the fact that Ms Vardy was evidently indignant at being
suspected of having leaked stories about Ms Rooney as supportive of her case. I accept
that her expression of indignation was genuine. But it was misplaced indignation. Ms
Vardy was well aware that she and Ms Watt had given information to Mr Halls for the
Car Crash Article, but she thought (rightly) that Ms Rooney could not know that and
was offended that Ms Rooney had guessed she was responsible. The exchange above
also shows the nature of the relationship and the degree of trust between Ms Watt and
The Sun, particularly Mr Halls, and that Ms Vardy was aware that Ms Watt would only
provide information to The Sun.

Meanwhile, Vardy was messaging Rooney in the sweetest of terms, so (besides the strict legal issues) she showed herself to be disingenuous, to put it mildly.

In another football (soccer) related trial, The Queen v Ryan Giggs, we again have reluctance to comply with court ordered disclorure of phone messages.This time it was a river instead of the sea, In the judge's summing up to the jury::

The jury were reminded that Ms Greville only handed her phone over to the police for their investigation after there was a summons from the defence.

Asked why she delayed giving them "limited access" to her device, she said: I was worried things would get twisted," like Mr Giggs did, and that the defence would discredit her as a witness.

Ms Greville told police she lost one phone in a river when she was trying to rescue her dog, and that a second phone was stolen from her in Market Street in Manchester city centre.

Asked if she had deleted messages to do with the case before allowing police to access her iCloud data, she said: "I deleted some messages between me and PR because I didn’t want him to be associated with this case."

^^^^

Testimony within the trial (under oath) by one of her friends/associates reported Ms. Greville as saying that she "wasn't walking away from the relationship with nothing". In her evidence, Ms. Greville claimed that this was in reference to the dog they co-owned. Make of that what you will...