By calling for “disciplined restraint” rather than “caution,” the Supreme Court sent a message that the Court of Appeal should be a little more willing to replace in a new sense. This is, not surprisingly, a very narrow and cautious remark: and Lord Kerr was quick to repeat that “it was a legal error on the part of the judge that opened the door to a redefinition of the meaning of Ms Stocker`s words” and “whether the Court of Appeal preferred only another meaning in a reasonably available field, so it should not intervene.” Nevertheless, a distinction has been made – and it is a piecemeal loosening of the reins. A crucial aspect of the case was that the trial judge discussed with the parties the dictionary definition of the verb “to suffocate,” which contained two possible meanings: “(a) kill by external compression of the throat; and (b) painfully shrink the neck or neck.” According to the judge, Ms. Stocker`s testimony would be understood by the “ordinary reader” to mean (a). It could not be (b) because he had succeeded, on the basis of the facts, in strangling her, that is, in squeezing her throat, and therefore he could not simply “try”. The Court of Appeal then dismissed Ms. Stocker`s appeal, with LJ Sharp concluding that the use of dictionaries was not part of the process of determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words. However, it was argued that no prejudice had been caused in this case because Mitting J. had used only the dictionary definitions for verification purposes.

“erred in law in relying on the dictionary definition of the verb `strangle` to dictate the meaning of Ms. Stocker`s Facebook post, rather than as (as Sharp LJ suggested) a control. As a result, he failed to conduct a realistic study of how the ordinary reader of the article would have understood it” [47] “Stockpile.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stocker. Retrieved 1 December 2022. Ms Stocker applied for leave to appeal to the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court). Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled that Justice Mitting erred in his decision based on dictionary definitions. It was pointed out that in the context of a Facebook post, when determining the meaning of the impugned words, it is both essential and necessary for the judge to consider how the messages are read. Lord Kerr gives the guiding verdict that the search for meaning should reflect the fact that Facebook is a casual medium in the manner of a conversation rather than a carefully chosen expression. In the first case, Mitting J. referred to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of “strangulation” in order to determine the meaning of the phrase “attempted to strangle”.

This provided two possible meanings (1) killing by external compression of the throat; and (2) to painfully shrink the neck or neck. Justice Mitting stated that the reference to the “attempt” to strangulate precluded the second meaning, since there was evidence that Ms. Stocker`s neck had been painfully narrowed by Mr. Stocker. Since Ms. Stocker was still alive, the only possible meaning of the phrase “attempted to strangle” was that Mr. Stocker had attempted to kill her. The Tribunal therefore found that the objection of justification had not been raised. Andrew Wheelhouse, “Stocker v Stocker: dictionaries, domestic violence and defamation” (OxHRH Blog, 2019) [date accessed]. It is not surprising that Lord Kerr castigated the inherent flaw in constructing from the two dictionary definitions of the verb “to suffocate”, rather than taking all the words used as a whole and in context. Strikingly, he did not limit himself to referring only to the archetype of the “reasonable reader” who replaced the jury.

Instead, it referred to an explicitly twenty-first subgroup, “a new class of readers: social media users.” This “social media user” understands that a medium like Facebook is “more casual media in the nature of a conversation than a carefully chosen expression.” In other words, the social media user does not analyze too much and understands that others who post on social media do not always speak absolutely literally. These sample phrases are automatically selected from various online information sources to reflect the current use of the word “Store”. The views expressed in the examples do not represent the views of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us your feedback. Ms. Stocker appealed, arguing that the reference to dictionary definitions was too narrow an approach to the meaning of words. The Court of Appeal was not convinced, considering the use of the dictionary definitions “as an examination and nothing more” and held that “the judge`s final reasoning, which does not depend on dictionaries, was sound.” The Supreme Court ruled that Justice Mitting erred in his decision by relying on dictionary definitions. Instead, the Supreme Court confirmed that the correct approach was to determine the meaning of an allegedly defamatory statement based on how it would be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader.

Relying on the dictionary definition (in Lord Kerr`s view), the judge did not “make a realistic study of how the ordinary reader of the article would have understood it”. This was an error of law which justified the Court of Appeal redefining what Lord Kerr considered to be essentially the meaning of paragraph (b). Ms Stocker`s arguments were therefore essentially correct and her appeal was allowed. In fact, the Supreme Court said nothing about the “plaintiff documents.” The focus was on Mitting J`s actions even before one of the two defenders had asked him the meaning: he had consulted a dictionary. The Court of Appeal largely dodged the case, ruling that Justice Mitting had “merely used the dictionary definitions for review and nothing more” and that “no harm had been done.” In the Supreme Court`s decision, Lord Kerr did not mince words: he rejected the Court of Appeal`s veneer on Justice Mitting`s actions and concluded that the trial judge The Supreme Court rejected the Court of Appeal`s interpretation of the defendant`s “he tried to strangle me” comment that the defendant had posted about her ex-husband on her new partner`s Facebook page.