In fact, he would be quite within his rights to terminate the thread entirely as it may still be sub judice.
Nonsense. Sub judice, literally "under justice", means that a case is currently before a court. This case is not. Judgement has issued. Despite some bleating from the White House, an appeal has not yet been lodged.
It is a common fallacy that one may not comment on a case that is sub judice. In fact, the sub judice principle operates only in certain very restricted cases. Mainly criminal, where public comment may prejudice a jury and imperil the accused's right to a fair trial. This does not apply here as Ryanair are not (yet!) charged with a criminal offence. The other common application of the principle is the convention that matters that are sub judice may not usually be raised in parliament. Separation of powers and all that.
These exceptions apart, commentary on sub judice cases is normal and permissible. Particulary when a jury is not involved. With all due respect to PPRuNe, the likelihood of the august justices of the Irish Supreme Court being unduly influenced by material published here seems remote.