Reason given was that (a) some posts on the previous thread had broken site rules - no suggestion that posts on this thread had; and (b) that MN couldn't allow anything to compromise an ongoing court case. But this is a civil case, not a criminal one, so the normal rules about discussing ongoing cases don't apply, and the suggestion that judges in the Court of Appeal might have their views tainted by what's discussed on MN is, frankly, absurd. And you allowed extensive discussion of every stage of the Gard and Evans cases while they were going on.
So what on earth is the rationale? It all seemed to be a perfectly calm and reasoned discussion to me.