Stocker v Stocker

In Stocker v Stocker, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was asked to determine the meaning of a Facebook post in which Nicola Stocker alleged that her former husband, Ronald Stocker, had tried to strangle her. The lower courts had determined that the ordinary reader would understand this to mean that Ronald had attempted to kill Nicola. Nicola appealed this determination. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts had erred in law by using dictionary definitions to determine the meaning of the post. The court held that the meaning of a statement should be determined by the ordinary reader, and that the reader would not have interpreted the statement as an allegation of attempted murder. The court also held that the post was substantially true and therefore justified. The appeal was allowed, and the costs of the appeal and the hearings before the lower courts were ordered to be borne by Ronald. The decision highlights the importance of considering the context in which a statement was made and the role of the ordinary reader in determining its meaning. It also emphasizes the importance of the defence of justification in defamation cases.