She recently lost round one of her ‘Wagatha Christie’ court battle with Rebekah Vardy.
The TV personality, 34, and her boys Kai, 10, Klay, seven, Kit, four, and Cass, two, certainly got into the festive spirit as they donned matching red personalised pyjamas in the snap taken by her photographer Grace Kellie.
Lovely: But Coleen Rooney was all smiles on Sunday as she shared an adorable snap with her four sons as they posed for their annual Christmas picture
Coleen, who is married to footballer Wayne, 34, looked every inch the doting mum as she snuggled with her beloved sons in the group snap, before going on to pose with each of them individually.
She styled her caramel tresses into an elegant half up, half down do’, while she upped the glamour with a dewy but subtle make-up palette.
Captioning the snap, she penned: ‘My boys ❤️……..Thank you so much @gracekelliephotography, another year, another fantastic shoot.’
There was no sign of Coleen’s husband and the boys’ father in the pictures and he didn’t appear to attend the photoshoot.
Family: Coleen, who is married to footballer Wayne, 34, looked every inch the doting mum as she snuggled with her beloved sons in the festive group snap (pictured in March)
Coleen’s festive smiles comes just days after Rebekah Vardy won the first round of their High Court libel battle on Friday after she was accused of leaking stories about Coleen’s private life to the media.
Coleen accused Rebekah, 38, of giving the press ‘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 Rebekah shared fake stories she had posted on her personal Instagram account with The Sun newspaper.
Absent: There was no sign of Coleen’s husband and the boys’ father in the pictures and he didn’t appear to attend the photoshoot
On Friday, the court ruled the post ‘clearly identified’ Rebekah as being ‘guilty of the serious and consistent breach of trust’ – but minutes later Coleen hit back with a statement via her spokesman, saying she was ‘keen’ to hear what Mrs Vardy has to say in court.
Coleen infamously 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.’
Rebekah, who is married to Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy, denies the accusations and is suing Coleen for damages for libel at the High Court in London.
Drama: Coleen’s festive smiles comes just days after Rebekah Vardy won the first round of their High Court libel battle on Friday after she was accused of leaking stories about her private life to the media (Coleen pictured in 2018)
Friday’s ruling at the High Court related to the wording in the final sentence of the post, with Coleen claiming she simply referred to Rebekah’s Instagram account rather than Rebekah herself.
But the judge said an ordinary reader would not take the word ‘account’ to ‘indicate that Coleen remains in doubt about who the wrongdoer was’. He also disagreed with Coleen’s 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 next year.
Later that day, Coleen’s spokesman told MailOnline: ‘Today’s ruling on the technical legal meaning of the post changes nothing. Coleen’s defence to this misguided action was filed last month.
‘It sets out clearly the facts of her case, which remain the same irrespective of any decision on the meaning. The key issues of the case remain the three stories from Coleen’s private Instagram account published by The Sun and Rebekah’s relationship with the newspaper, including its ‘Secret Wag’ column.
Shock: Coleen accused Rebekah, 38, of giving the press ‘false stories’ about her private life last October after carrying out a months-long ‘sting operation’ which saw her dubbed ‘Wagatha Christie’
The statement: Last October, Coleen publicly accused Becky’s account in a statement of selling fake stories about her, sparking an angry denial from the then-pregnant WAG
‘Coleen is pleased the judge has ordered that Rebekah must file her reply to the defence, on oath, by no later than December 8. After three years of stress and anxiety about the leaks from her private social media account, Coleen is keen to see progress made on the real issues, beginning with what Rebekah has to tell the court.’
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.’
‘I don’t need the money’: Becky denied all accusations against her minutes after the post and said she had nothing to gain and had no financial motivation
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.
Ruling: In his ruling, Mr Justice Warby said Mrs Rooney’s message was ‘a considered post, using wording composed with some care’
The judge ruled: ‘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 was.’
He later said: ‘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.’
Mr Justice Warby also ordered Mrs Rooney to pay Mrs Vardy just under £23,000 in costs for yesterday’s hearing.
Loss: Mr Justice Warby also ordered Mrs Rooney to pay Mrs Vardy just under £23,000 in costs for yesterday’s hearing (pictured 2016)