Congratulations. Perhaps that time spent on boards and in court rooms meant you were too busy to read paragraphs 59 and 60 of the judgement. (Hint: the parts where the majority specifically declines to lift the corporate veil.)
All three members found that jetconnect was funded by Qantas. That wasn't disputed. This does not amount to lifting the corporate veil, nor did it amount to a 'sham' in the view of the majority. Funding a subsidiary doesn't equate to it being a 'sham' for the purpose of lifting the corporate veil.