WWW good questions. I'm not setting myself up as an expert, because I am not - but I did ask about this and allied matters earlier this week and was told as follows:
1. The "Facts"
There are two findings of "false evidence" on the part of two FR witnesses and a further two FR witnesses gave testimony "found to be unworth of belief". (On an aside, that means that for all practical purposes the four key FR witnesses was each found wanting). The former are the two which potentially attract the charge of "perjury".
The judgment also contains several statements by the judge in which he used the words "I find as a fact ..." etc. (More on this below).
2. Significance
All the judge did was deliver a judgement. He himself does not generate (directly or indirectly) an investigation about "false evidence". He has identified something which can or might lead to an investigation or charge of perjury. The judge does not (normally) take any action.
3. What the future might hold
Any issues relating to alleged perjury require a formal complaint to be made to the Irish police if the matter is to be pursued. (Note: if I got this right it is the perjury that is alleged when making the complaint - but the "false evidence" is a finding of fact by the judge). Apparently such a complaint can be made by anyone.
In this regard it is worth noting that in the REPA case one of those accused of giving "false evidence", the Ryanair "Director of Personnel and In-Flight" Mr. E. Wilson, himself initiated an Irish police investigation of the REPA moderator sued by Ryanair as part of the REPA case. The judge found that there were no grounds to justify calling that investigation and made a disparaging reference to the action by Mr. Wilson.
4. Appealing the judgment
This judgment, I am told, can only be appealed on matters of law. In other words, the judge's findings of fact cannot be challenged. This answers somebody's question above about "repeating perjury" - that does not arise as there will be no examination of witnesses. In respect of any Appeal the judge was stated (to me) to have done a good job in (legally) demonstrating that the Ryanair action lacked any merit in the first place - though at this point my grasp of the nuances is weak.
5. The bottom line
The outcome was represented to me as being a "nightmare" for Ryanair. They did more than lose the case - they were routed and the reality revealed to all. Senior Executives, who rarely blink without permission from on high, did some very strange things and made some very strange decisions that are now manifest to all.
If there are any errors of interpretation above it would be exceedingly helpful if someone with legal training would comment / correct any of the legal points that rely on my understanding of third party information.