The SCT decision restates the bleeding obvious, and proves - if proof were necessary - that our adversarial legal system (in its design, policies and implementation) is years behind critical risk management and related preemption. Justice is an occasional by-product.

In 2008, as a prudential regulator at APRA (apart from being an actuary as well), I highlighted the significant conflicts of interest in actuarial advice being provided to DB funds in a range of situations, including the SCT case under discussion:
http://www.apra.gov.au/Speeches/Documents/ACTUARIAL-CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST-IN-DB-FUNDS_Ramani-Venkatramani.pdf

Scant notice was taken of this by many, though the Institute of Actuaries did make improvements, but falling short of banning conflicted advice. The UK and Canadian professional counterparts have made some strides.

Barring a Lord Jenningsinan (of the snail in the bottle 'duty of care' repute) visionary legal precedent declaring conflicted actuarial advice illegal and hopefully imposing criminal penalties on those who dare play both sides of the advisory game, I am afraid that much will not change. The SCT decision is helpful, but it does not have the strength of a binding Court decision.

Sadly, the profession at the forefront of risk management cannot afford to allow its own core enterprise risk issue continue unresolved.