From the reported comments, it looks like she won on two points.
First, that the previous judge, Mr Justice Mitting, erred in law in using just the dictionary definition.
And secondly, that the things already proven about the husband were enough to establish him as a "dangerous and disreputable man", and therefore it was not a libel to say other things that portrayed him as such (hope I've expressed that correctly).
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.”
www.theguardian.com/law/2019/apr/03/womans-strangle-facebook-post-not-libellous-say-judges