The point is that a parliamentarian, and an unelected one at that, has used parliamentary privilege to undermine the authority of the courts, contrary to parliamentary rules on how this privilege should exercised. In this particular case, you don't care about this because you (very understandably) dislike the person who has been disadvantaged by this and are pleased with the outcome. Just don't complain when it happens about something you do care about.

You all seem to have assumed that Green would have won his case. If the Telegraph's sources had come from people not bound by NDAs then he may not have succeeded in permanently preventing publication. The court may have decided that the NDAs don't prevent the identification of the parties themselves, as suggested by another article in today's Times. Because of Hain's premature intervention we shall never know.