Stocker v Stocker
In deciding the meaning of a post on social media, the court must consider how an ordinary reader would understand it in the context of the medium, rather than relying on dictionary definitions.
Facts
Mrs Stocker posted a comment on Facebook, in a conversation with her former husband's new partner, saying that he had tried to strangle her. Mr Stocker had once put his hands around her neck during an argument, but she had not lost consciousness. He sued for libel, arguing that the words meant that he had tried to kill her. The trial judge relied on dictionary definitions of strangle, which meant to kill by squeezing the neck, and held that the words meant that he had tried to kill her, which was not proved to be true.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held that the judge had been wrong to rely on dictionary definitions. Lord Kerr said that the court must find the meaning that the ordinary reasonable reader would take from the words, in the context in which they were published. A reader of Facebook would not stop to analyse the words, but would understand them in a casual way, and would understand that Mrs Stocker meant that Mr Stocker had grasped her by the neck, which was true. The defence of truth therefore succeeded.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11, [2012] 2 AC 273
- Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
