Well Fume, I could make the same post, but in reverse: Unite's QC misunderstanding basic terms used in the airline, presenting tatty dog eared documents from the 70s as evidence, BA's legal team appearing confident and familiar with the material, the judge seeming to offer Unite only their minimum entitlement etc.
I've heard it 'from the horse's mouth' too, but as they say in court, it's just hearsay, and so worthless. The court will decide..... unless Unite seek a way out beforehand when the financial risk becomes unacceptable.
As for injunctions, I don't believe BA will seek to delay the strike. After the 14th, they will start explaining to crew members exactly what they are going to be exposing themselves to if they decide to take IA. It will get very personal, scary, and potentially very expensive as a cabin crew member who wants to strike.
BA are convinced crew crew won't strike in any number so will allow the union to go ahead and take the public flak approaching Christmas, and quickly lose its credibility as a strike rapidly falls apart. (Mass sickies won't cut it.) Unite can't afford a protracted strike anyway - £30/day for the thousands they need would be an expense the rest of Unite (think carworkers and steelworkers facing redundancy) won't waste on cabin crew having to work one down. Unite will then seek a way out of the hearing through an out of court settlement.
This isn't going the way of 1997. Bassa lost then, and WW was actually sympathetic to some of Bassa's points. This time he believes he is justified in taking on Bassa's pretence to power, and has the means to do so.