Rebekah Vardy 'wants to make a shock return to I'm A Celebrity this year and surprise rival Coleen Rooney', according to new reports.

Coleen, 38, is said to have been keen on joining the show for years, but only recently felt confident enough to leave her family in the UK.

Amid reports the WAG has signed up to the jungle, Rebekah, 42, who appeared in the show in 2017, reportedly finds it 'hilarious that Coleen is copying her'.

A pal told The Sun: 'Becky would be straight on a plane if she had the chance. She’d love to see the look on Coleen’s face if she appeared. It would make the best television.

'But she imagines bosses have promised Coleen they have no such surprise planned. She thinks it’s hilarious that Coleen is copying her and it is only encouraging people to keep talking about Wagatha rather than leave it in the past.

'Becky has nothing to hide though she would be game to put on her camp costume.' 

MailOnline have contacted Rebekah's representatives for a comment. 

It comes after Rebekah shared a cryptic post after it was announced Coleen is reportedly set to appear on the show.

Reports claim that Coleen has been offered the biggest deal in the show's history, exceeding Nigel Farage's £1.5million from last year.

Whilst Rebekah may not be an avid viewer, her legal team are said to be paying close attention to anything that could be said.

She is also thought to be getting the 'ultimate revenge' by signing up, with Rebekah, being booted out early in the 2017 series. 

Rebekah apparently has no plans to watch Coleen's stint on I'm A Celebrity unless it's to catch her tacking a stomach-turning Bushtucker Trial.

Fans are desperate for Coleen to tell all about the Wagatha Christie drama on the reality show, but it's been reported that she is not taking any chances.

Taking to her Instagram Stories, Rebekah shared text reading: 'I take rumours as a compliment. The fact you're bringing my name onto tables I don't sit at shows your obsession. Stay bothered.'

Meanwhile, the 'Wagatha Christie' case is returning to court after Rebekah launched an appeal against having to pay Coleen up to £1.8million in legal costs.

Barristers for the women battled in the High Court last month over how much Rebekah should pay in costs after losing a libel action in 2022 and her legal team confirmed on Friday she is challenging the judge's ruling.

In a three-day hearing, lawyers for Rebekah - the wife of Leicester City striker Jamie Vardy - argued that the sum should be reduced due to what they said was 'serious misconduct' by Coleen's legal team.

But Senior Costs Judge Andrew Gordon-Saker found 'on balance and, I have to say, only just', that Coleen's legal team had not committed wrongdoing, and therefore it was 'not an appropriate case' to reduce the amount of money that Rebekah should pay.

Court documents show that Rebekah has launched an appeal bid, which her lawyers Kingsley Napley confirmed related to the misconduct ruling.

In 2019, Coleen, the wife of former Manchester United striker Wayne Rooney, accused Rebekah's Instagram account of leaking her private information to the press on social media.

Rebekah sued her for libel, but Mrs Justice Steyn found in July 2022 that the allegation was 'substantially true'.

The judge later ordered Rebekah to pay 90 per cent of Coleen's costs, including an initial payment of £800,000.

The previous hearing in London was told that Coleen's claimed legal bill - £1,833,906.89 - was more than three times her 'agreed costs budget of £540,779.07', which Jamie Carpenter KC, for Mrs Vardy, said was 'disproportionate'.

He claimed that Coleen's legal team had committed misconduct by understating some of her costs so she could 'use the apparent difference in incurred costs thereby created to attack the other party's costs', which was 'knowingly misleading'.

Rebekah had demanded a 50 per cent cut in the £1.8million settlement, as it was alleged that Coleen was charging for a lawyer's stay at a five-star Nobu Hotel.

Her lawyers argued that the opposing legal team's estimate of their costs for expenses including a luxury hotel and a hotly disputed minibar tab was deliberately misleading and that this warranted a reduction in the amount she had to pay.

Coleen's barrister Robin Dunne insisted, 'There has been no misconduct', and that it was 'illogical to say that we misled anyone'.

He added that the argument that the amount owed should be reduced was 'misconceived' and that the budget was 'not designed to be an accurate or binding representation' of her overall legal costs.

Barristers for Mrs Vardy had called Mrs Rooney's legal costs 'extraordinary', including money for a lawyer staying 'at the Nobu Hotel, incurring substantial dinner and drinks charges as well as minibar charges'.

They also demanded to know why ‘digital forensics’ experts instructed by Mrs Rooney had spent 350 hours looking at social media data, at a cost of £140,000. 

But Mr Dunne said that one of Coleen's solicitors only stayed at the hotel due to a problem with their original booking elsewhere.

Judge Gordon-Saker ruled that while there was a 'failure to be transparent', it was not 'sufficiently unreasonable or improper' to constitute misconduct - as he ruled the bill had been legitimately incurred.

He ordered Mrs Vardy to pay Mrs Rooney a further £100,000 ahead of the full amount owed being decided at a later date.

He said: 'I think there is some scope for a further payment on account so the defendant (Mrs Rooney) is not kept out of her costs, and I think that should be no more than £100,000.'

The hearing, which neither woman attended, dealt with several preliminary issues before a full 'line-by-line' assessment of costs takes place at a later date, which will decide the overall amount of money to be paid.

Judge Gordon-Saker said this could take place in early 2025, but added: 'The parties need to get on with this and put it behind them.'

He said: 'Realistically, it (the line-by-line assessment) is probably going to be next year, hopefully early next year.'