Rebekah Vardy has won the first stage of her legal battle against Coleen Rooney

In the infamous post, 34-year-old Coleen said she posted a string of false stories to Instagram with restricted access to see if they appeared in the media - which she claims they did - and accused “Rebekah Vardy’s account” of being the only one which viewed the posts.

Rebekah denied the allegations, and claimed several people had access to her account.

This week, legal teams for the pair headed to court to allow a judge to decide the "natural and ordinary" meaning of Coleen’s Instagram post and set down the parameters for the trial, with Rebekah’s camp arguing the Instagram post directly “pointed the finger” at Rebekah herself, whilst Coleen’s team claimed the star only ever blamed her account.

And on Friday (20.11.20), Mr Justice Warby ruled in favour of Rebekah, as he agreed that the post - which was viewed by millions of people - directly blamed Rebekah for selling the stories.

The court ruling now means that Coleen must prove that Rebekah herself was responsible for the allegations against her account if she is to defend the libel case brought against her.

However, the pair’s lawyers have agreed to meet for one final attempt to resolve the case outside of court, with a stay in place until February 8.

During their court hearing this week - which took place without Rebekah or Coleen attending in person - lawyers for Rebekah argued that Coleen’s “detective process” in her Instagram post was "to find the true villain of the piece”, and claimed “the finger is being pointed” at Rebekah as a person, rather than her Instagram account.

Hugh Tomlinson QC, for Rebekah, said: "The person is Rebekah Vardy, the finger is being pointed at her, as the villain, the person, the someone, the one person.”

However, court documents claim Coleen only ever accused Rebekah’s account of accessing the stories, not the star herself.

They state: "The source of the leaks of the Defendant’s private information was the Claimant’s account.

"The emphasis of ‘except ONE account’ (with capital letters) and the final words of the post make clear that the responsibility lies with a particular account.

"As a result of this, a reasonable reader would conclude that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the Claimant had leaked the information herself, but the finger is pointed firmly at the account, not the Claimant herself."