Which court decided it?

Supreme Court in 2019. Neutral citation: [2019] UKSC 17.

Why does it matter for UK journalists?

Meaning is judged by the impression on an ordinary reader in the specific medium. Facebook readers are hasty and impressionistic — trial judge erred by using a dictionary literal meaning. Social-media context is intrinsic to meaning assessment.

Stocker v Stocker

[2019] UKSC 17 — Supreme Court, 2019

Last reviewed: 14 July 2026Next review due: 14 January 2027

What the court held

Meaning in defamation is determined by how the ordinary reasonable reader (or in this case, Facebook user) would understand the words in context. Modern social-media publications require judges to consider platform norms and reader habits.

Key rulings

Meaning is judged by the impression on an ordinary reader in the specific medium.
Facebook readers are hasty and impressionistic — trial judge erred by using a dictionary literal meaning.
Social-media context is intrinsic to meaning assessment.

Topics

DefamationSocial mediameaning

Related cases (citator)

How this case connects to others in the landmark set — lines of authority, statutory supersession, and companion rulings.

Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB)
Both concern the meaning of social-media statements.
Lachaux v Independent Print Ltd [2019] UKSC 27
Companion Supreme Court defamation authority.

Authoritative source

Read the full judgment on BAILII (British and Irish Legal Information Institute):

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2019/17.html

Cite this page

Format

Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17 (Supreme Court) &lt;https://www.ukjournohub.com/law/landmark-cases/stocker-stocker&gt; accessed 14 July 2026.

Please cite when quoting or paraphrasing on UK JournoHub — see /ai.txt for policy.

Related landmark cases

Landmark caseMonroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB)Read →Landmark caseAttorney General v Yaxley-Lennon [2019] EWHC 1791 (QB)Read →Landmark caseCadwalladr v Banks [2022] EWHC 1417 (QB)Read →Landmark caseDepp v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2020] EWHC 2911 (QB)Read →

Case summaries are drafted by UK JournoHub Editorial for practising UK journalists. They are not legal advice. Always consult primary sources and, for high-risk stories, take specialist legal advice.