Given that the courts found BA's actions in removing one crew member to be reasonable, this implies that BASSA's industrial action was unreasonable; in fact I wondered why BA aren't suing BASSA for the damage inflicted on their business.
So before the issue of ST is dealt with, let this one be concluded.
It is my humble opinion that since one was a direct result of the other, they should not be dealt with by the courts as as separate issue, but as connected events.
However, Litebulbs would have us believe that it is legitimate for a union to inflict serious financial damage on a company even when it is not reasonable to do so, and that they cannot face any sanction for doing so. This may be true, but it is wrong in my opinion.
Litebulbs has it that BA's actions in removing ST were also wrong.
Since two wrongs don't make a right, I'd suggest the courts adjust accordingly.
Then you have the possible scenario of (a) BA taking GBP150 million off BASSA to make up the losses unreasonably inflicted upon them, and then (b) BA giving strikers back ST and giving them the tickets they would have used when they were unavailable (which can easily be calculated based on previous use).
(Should each party win their respective cases, I would accept punitive damages to be equal and therefore cancelled out).
I believe this would be fair.