A woman’s claim in a Facebook post that her ex-husband “tried to strangle” her was not libellous, the supreme court has ruled in a decision that will set a significant precedent for domestic violence cases.

All five justices agreed that the meaning of words on hastily read social media might be different from the clinically dissected, dictionary definition of a phrase.

The appeal had been brought by Nicola Stocker, who divorced her husband, Ronald, in 2012. Shortly afterwards, she requested, and was accepted, as a Facebook friend by his new partner, Deborah Bligh.

During a series of exchanges with Bligh, Stocker told her about her former husband, saying: “Last time I accused him of cheating, he spent a night in the cells, tried to strangle me.” The posting was seen by several other acquaintances online. Her husband sued for libel.

David Price QC, for Nicola Stocker, told the supreme court: “The phrase ‘tried to strangle’ is a common way of describing an assault involving a constriction of the neck or throat where the victim is alive … The phrase does not convey an intent to kill in ordinary language or in relevant criminal offences.”

At the first hearing in the high court, Mr Justice Mitting had focused on two dictionary definitions of the verb “to strangle” and concluded that Mrs Stocker’s Facebook comments meant that her husband had attempted to kill her.

Delivering judgment in the supreme court, however, Lord Kerr said: “[Mr Justice] Mitting fell into legal error by relying upon the dictionary definition of the verb ‘to strangle’ as dictating the meaning of Mrs Stocker’s Facebook post…

“In consequence, he failed to conduct a realistic exploration of how the ordinary reader of the post would have understood it. Readers of Facebook posts do not subject them to close analysis. They do not have someone by their side pointing out the possible meanings that might, theoretically, be given to the post.

“Anyone reading this post would not break it down in the way that [Mr Justice] Mitting did by saying, well, strangle means either killing someone by choking them to death or grasping them by the throat and since Mrs Stocker is not dead, she must have meant that her husband tried to kill her.”

Kerr added: “It is beyond dispute that Mr Stocker grasped his wife by the throat so tightly as to leave red marks on her neck visible to police officers two hours after the attack on her took place.

“It is not disputed that he breached a non-molestation order. Nor has it been asserted that he did not utter threats to Mrs Stocker. Many would consider these to be sufficient to establish that he was a dangerous and disreputable man, which is the justification which Mrs Stocker sought to establish.

“… Even if all all her allegations were considered not to have been established to the letter, there is more than enough to satisfy the provision in section 5 of the 1952 [Defamation] Act that her defence of justification should not fail by reason only that the truth of every charge is not proved, having regard to the truth of what has been proved.”

In a statement issued after the decision, Ronald Stocker, said: “I am disappointed with today’s judgment after two previous courts found in my favour. I understand that in defamation cases the court has to make a decision on the meaning of the words used, and the supreme court has overruled the trial judge in this respect.”

After the judgment, Nicola Stocker said: “I’m delighted and hugely relieved. It highlights the danger that the courts are being used by men to continue an abusive process whether it be in libel courts or the family court.

“It has been five years of my life. I have had to take out loans and pay money on account and even then I was represented on a no-win, no-fee basis.”

Nicola Stocker would have faced a legal bill of up to £300,000 if she had lost the appeal at the supreme court.

David Price QC, the solicitor advocate who represented her, said: “I’m delighted that she has finally got some common sense and justice.

“While the judgment clarifies the issue of interpreting words, it doesn’t solve the formidable problem of the English libel law, which makes it difficult if not impossible for ordinary people to defend themselves because of the costs.”

Harriet Wistrich, a solicitor with the Centre for Women’s Justice who had supported Nicola Stocker, said that such cases were an attempt to “silence women through the libel laws”.

She added: “The majority of domestic violence is around strangulation and even if there’s no intent to kill it’s a very dangerous act. There’s been a lot of work around trying to make it a separate crime.”

Karen Ingala Smith, the co-founder of the Femicide Census, said: “We know …. that between 2009 and 2017, 285 women were killed though strangulation, of which 188 women were strangled to death by a current or former partner, that’s an average of one woman strangled to death every two weeks. It is the second most common method used to kill women in the UK.

“Accidentally causing death by applying pressure to the vagus nerve in the neck has also been used successfully as a defence against a murder charge. Whether used as a means to kill, frighten and/or control women strangulation is extremely dangerous and abusive.

“Anything that undermines the seriousness of strangulation, especially when sanctioned in law, is a green light for men who abuse women.”