Sensationalist title and article but even from the article's description the ruling seems much more reasonable that claimed.

If I understand correctly:

Garage was sued in part for violating a consumer protection law that protects against unfair and deceptive practices like "charging for repairs that are in fact not performed".

The court ruled that the garage has not violated that law because they had in fact performed the tyre rotation. The issue was rather that the rotation was performed incorrectly. Presumably if the rotation had not been performed the customer would not have lost a wheel in the first place...

Sounds reasonable to me.

If the issue is one of recovering legal costs then that should be addressed specifically in law.