Stocker v Stocker
The trial judge correctly found that the appellant published defamatory statements on Facebook to third parties, attributed the proper meaning to the words, and rightly rejected the defence of justification as the allegations were a significant overstatement of the facts. The law does not require knowledge or intention for publication in these circumstances, and the appellant was responsible for the consequences of her actions.
- Parties
- Appellant: Ronald Terance Stocker; Respondent: Nicola Stocker
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 12 February 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Publication, Meaning of Words, Justification, Social Media Liability
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ronald Terance Stocker
Appellant
Nicola Stocker
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the trial judge erred in the meaning attributed to the defamatory statements
- 2 Whether the trial judge applied the correct legal test regarding publication on Facebook
- 3 Whether the defence of justification under section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952 was properly considered
Ratio Decidendi
The trial judge correctly found that the appellant published defamatory statements on Facebook to third parties, attributed the proper meaning to the words, and rightly rejected the defence of justification as the allegations were a significant overstatement of the facts. The law does not require knowledge or intention for publication in these circumstances, and the appellant was responsible for the consequences of her actions.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment