In the report I saw (on dpreview, I think) there was mention of bad history between the two photographers involving a previous copyright dispute. From my what I read, it sounded like the ruling took that previous history into account.
Actually, it's pretty clear from the judgment that the history was entirely disregarded. The earlier, compromised claim is mentioned only in passing; and the bona fides of neither witness was questioned. The analysis is based on the content of the images and their obvious similarities. It's an interesting read.
However, its significance shouldn't be overestimated, for at least two reasons.
First, it's very obviously a decision which turned on its particular facts: there's little law in it and a good deal of analysis of the images, their contents, their appearance (red on b&w) and the means by which they were made.
Second, it's a decision of a county court which is therefore not only not binding on any other court but shouldn't even be cited in any future argument.