You are right that I haven't read the judgement.  That is because I have a full-time job which does not involve the law, and Wikipedia is a hobby for me: i.e. I don't care to make the time for it. -)  But that's the point: articles like this would be helpful for a layman if they summarize the most important issues of the case up front, which is what I suggested in the first place.  As it is, the length and bearing of the article are discouraging for someone who is not a lawyer or law student.
I think Wikipedia policy is pretty clear in discouraging this approach.  Unfortunately for me, I don't presently have the time to read the case text and write a decent summary of it, which is something that would be better done by a scholar of the work anyway.  I can only urge you to do so and hope that you or another legal-minded Wikipedian will come to agree.  Best of luck and keep up the good work!