They attended Court to assert they were attempting to stop coal exports to countries which use it to produce cars similar to the one they arrived in to stage the protest.

The case has upheld an important legal point: that victim's compensation should be reserved for the victims of crime (for example victims of assault), not for corporations who have been subject to a public protest but have been unable to prove to the court that they have suffered any loss of income resulting from the protest, and have also demonstrated that they don't need the compensation (by offering to donate any compensation granted to charity). This is an important decision, as increasingly corporations have been seeking new ways to silence protest. Whether you agree with the protester's stance or not, the court decision has been an important one in defending the democratic right to protest without the protesters being later harrassed by spurious "compensation" claims for an unidentifiable company loss.
However, as the atmospheric carbon pollution issue is real, and many people are genuinely concerned about it, we can expect more such protests.

Johnj,

Please enlighten me by defining the term "Carbon pollution".

There is no need to define atmospheric carbon pollution - you can look up a dictionary. On another matter, the response of plants to increased atmospheric CO2 - article on link below is one of many that establish that, unforutunately plants do not respond to increased atmospheric CO2 by growing faster: many respond by taking in less CO2. This study was done in 2006.

http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0501-ucsd.html