Be a Part of European Funding: November 20th

logo

Be a Part of European Funding

The External Projects team’s annual UK Research Office (UKRO) event is on Thursday November 20th, LT114/116 Ashley Building, Stoke. This is our opportunity to hear the latest EU research funding news from our Brussels based UKRO representative Blazej Thomas.

9:00-10:30 –SME involvement- how researchers can work with businesses and other non-academic sectors under the different Horizon 2020 programmes

10:30-12:00 –Marie Sklodowska Curie funding. An overview of the fund, what we can do with it and the level of detail required for an application

12:00-16:30 – Information and Networking session for Businesses and University Staff Businesses interested in getting involved with European funded projects are invited to come to the University to find out how the programmes work and talk to academics about how they can collaborate on projects. The University has lead and partnered on many European projects. It is a great way for businesses to develop their European networks and to get funding to develop a new idea to improve your business. This event is free and includes lunch.

12:00-16:30 –One to One Sessions Book a one to one session with our European specialist to get inside knowledge on developing your European Project. Get individual advice on which conferences to attend to meet people, which EU policies you should be focusing on, how to find partners, how to develop your bid and more.

To book your place email externalprojects@staffs.ac.uk saying which sessions you wish to attend.

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Attract an outstanding scientific researcher

Funding from the Royal Society to attract or keep an outstanding scientific researcher (including engineering) at the University for up to five years.

Funding Body: Royal Society

Scheme: Wolfson research merit awards

Overview: These enable universities to attract, or keep in the UK, researchers of outstanding achievement and potential. The award covers all areas of the life and physical sciences, including engineering.

Awards are made to the university and therefore researchers must remain at the university named on the application. Researchers may be of any nationality but must hold or have received a firm offer for a permanent post at a UK university.

Budget: Funding in the form of salary enhancements, usually worth £10,000 to £30,000 per year, will be provided for up to five years. Research expenses will be considered for overseas researchers to support integration into the UK research environment.

Deadlines: 08 July 2014 –This call repeats, we do not have exact dates available, but it is roughly an annual call.

Further Information: http://royalsociety.org/Wolfson-Research-Merit-Awards/

Science-Image

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Proprietary rights in payment of bribes and secret commissions coming home? Perhaps this week.

The Football World Cup as global drama seems, by dint of the sheer brilliance of the players, to have shaken off preoccupations about the beautiful game’s darker subplot – including the Qatari allegations of bribes and secret commissions. It is currently speculated that such payments, if proven could result in a re-run of the entire bidding process for the staging of the 2022 World Cup. The case of FHR Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners (and Mr Mankarious) is more modest in remedial terms – the principal seeking to recover back the value received by the agent (the first measure of the agent’s enrichment), or the value surviving (the second measure of enrichment) or traceable in the hands of the agent or third parties (if a proprietary claim is for the first time recognised by the Supreme Court) in agency type cases.

Relevance of this bribery case to Universities:

All Government contracts contain provisions relating to the criminal law and the Bribery Act 2010, however any University would still have to fall back on the common law to seek the recovery of bribes and secret commissions in all their general contracts so this week’s appeal is highly relevant to our general contracting position and a useful reminder of the current state of the law.

The question before the UK Supreme Court this week does not perhaps include the category of corrupt payments in the form of a bribe, however it does include the remedial consequences of secret commissions, and bribes to agents, and whether the beneficiaries could seek recovery not merely as a personal claim but also upon a constructive trust, and allow recovery on a proprietary basis.

This is an age old problem – best illustrated by the nineteenth century case of Lister v Stubbs [1890] 45 Ch D 1 (the claim against an agent receiving a secret commission, the principal being confined to only a personal claim for value received by the agent) closing off any possibility of a proprietary claim by trust, constructive or otherwise. Lister was not followed in the later Privy Council decision (a bribe case involving a Government prosecuting official) in Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 AC 324.

The Supreme Court website has put the question on appeal as follows:
Does an agent who receives a secret commission hold the sum paid on constructive trust for his principal(s) giving rise to proprietary rights?
The facts
The applicants in the appeal are a company called Cedar Capital Partners (CCP/’Cedar’) who together with a Mr Mankarious entered into an agreement (an exclusive Brokerage Agreement) with the owners of a hotel in Monte Carlo, for Cedar to arrange for the sale of the hotel in exchange for a fee of €10m. Cedar subsequently acted as agent on behalf of the respondents in the appeal, who were a consortium who wished to purchase the hotel for €211.5m. The €10m fee was paid to Cedar in accordance with the Brokerage Agreement within 5 days of the owners of the hotel receiving the payment price for the hotel from the consortium. The €10m fee (paid by the vendor to the agent Cedar) was a payment unknown to the consortium (purchasers) on the facts.
When the consortium discovered the payment of the €10m to Cedar/Mr Mankarious, they sought recovery of the payment from Cedar/Mr Mankarious. They succeeded before Justice Simon in obtaining an account for the €10m, however the judge held that the claim was personal only (‘in personam’) and the money held by Mr Mankarious was not held on a proprietary basis, on a constructive trust or otherwise.

The Court of Appeal reversed this decision, and held that in receiving the secret commission, Cedar/Mr Mankarious had exploited an opportunity properly belonging to the consortium, and accordingly the €10m fee was to be held on a constructive trust, which was proprietary in nature, and therefore traceable as surviving enrichments in substitutions (eg. where the €10m was used to purchase property as a substitute for the original enrichment, or paid into or converted into property through other media such a bank account etc).
This proprietary quality in the enrichment is the subject of the appeal – a claim and legal right not previously recognised at the highest Court level in relation to agents receiving secret commissions or bribes.
The general concern has been to disallow a beneficiary principal gaining priority in an insolvency claim in the insolvent fraudster’s estate, but this legal policy might change next week.

There are seven Supreme Court Justices listed; and Lord Collins has been called back into the squad as an impact player for his understanding of Company law, insolvency and priority. It would be mixing metaphors to say he has come off the bench, in fact being called back ‘to’ the Bench!

Lord Collins appears to have been the first instance judge in Daraydan (etc) v Solland (etc) [2004] EWHC 622, involving the recovery of bribes and secret commissions charged in the refurbishment of luxury properties in London and – er Qatar. In the event that the current law of Equity undergoes a change this week, in recognising that the receipt of a secret commission or a bribe has proprietary consequences and that beneficiaries could indeed engage in the process of tracing, identify and follow substitutions made in the property to its ultimate surviving value or indeed into the hands of a third party, it will arguably add to the armoury of the victims on the margins of bribery and fraud. So as in the World Cup, there is still ‘everything to play for.’

First Instance decision of Simon J:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2308.html&query=FHR&method=boolean

Court of Appeal decision of Lewison LJ:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/17.html&query=FHR&method=boolean

the decision of Lawrence Collins J in Daraydan (etc) v Solland (etc) [2004] EWHC 622:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2004/622.html&query=collins+and+qatar&method=boolean

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Contract Review Process

The University has a Contracts and Compliance officer, Chris Kenning. He provides internal legal support and expertise in the area of research and funding.

He looks into Research Contracts in the University sector, with growing interest in ensuring the distribution of academic research for the enhancement of learning and the protection of the University’s commercially exploitable academic and scientific knowledge to the benefit of the University and staff where applicable.

This document takes you through the Contracts Review Process

If you need further support: C.Kenning@staffs.ac.uk

 

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Book NOW – External Projects Team – Staffs Fest Programme

index

There is still time to book onto the External ProjectsTeam Staffs Fest events, we are offering three sessions which can be booked via MyView.

  • 30th June 2014 – Jose Beech – Bid Writing  – 10-12 noon Ashley LT011
  • 7th July 2014 – Margaret Bennett / Esther Knight  – Euro Trash – a fun EU quiz – 1pm-2.30pm BG 50 Brindley
  • 7th July 2014 – Chris Kenning – Consultancy Agreements in a University Context 3pm- 4.30pm BG 50 Brindley

These sessions will be a great opportunity to meet the team and become familiar with our work, please get in touch if you want to find out more before you book. Email us at externalprojects@staffs.ac.uk

 

   

 

   
0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Chartered Institute of Management Accountants Research Grants

CIMA - Chartered Institute of Management Accountants

The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants invites applications for its research initiative. Research that is innovative and challenges and offers fresh perspectives on a range of topics related to the science of management accounting will be supported

Research applications are invited on the topics of:

  • big data
  • management accounting in banks and financial institutions

Grants are worth between £5,000 and £40,000.

The deadline for applications is 30 September 2014.

For further information go to: http://www.cimaglobal.com/en-gb/Thought-leadership/Research-Funding/Research-intiatives/

 

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Case study RETS

rets 

logo_interreg_ivb_colour-2

SU Lead Person 

Funding body Interreg

Prof. Jon Fairburn  jon.fairburn@staffs.ac.uk

 

Project Partners

12 European partners (local authorities, development agencies, NGOs, chambers of commerce – see project website)

Project title Renewable Energies Transfer Scheme (RETS)
Summary 

 

 

The main objective of RETS was to improve the knowledge and competencies of local and regional policymakers in renewable energies in order to facilitate the deployment of renewable energy policies.The core RETS activities concerned the creation of simple usable tools for local authorities in order to help them make informed choices for the implementation of the right renewable energy strategy within their territories.
When did it run? 2010 -2012
What were the outcomes? A wide range of academic and professional staff learned what was involved with an INTERREG project as well as EU projects in general. The project as a whole produced:

Future / ongoing activities as a result of this project We are still in contact with the lead and we hope to develop other projects together in the next funding round.An excellent project we learnt a lot and contributed a lot.
Top tips for this funder Be able to demonstrate communication and networking activities.
How easy was the application? The lead was ADEC who managed the application process
Website/Contact
Think this project looks interesting? What NextFor further support from the External projects team contact: externalprojects@staffs.ac.uk or call 01785 353774
0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Wellcome Trust: Sustaining Health awards

wtp053107[1]

The Wellcome Trust Strategic Plan includes a specific challenge in the area of ‘connecting environment, nutrition and health’ – seeking deeper insights into the issues at stake and develop strategies to mitigate the risks to human health.  This embraces the research themes of

  • behaviour change
  • global nutrition
  • health impacts of climate change
  • ecological public health

Public health is seriously threatened by a lack of access to nutritious food, clean water and sanitation, by poor air quality, and by environmental (including climate) change. These interlinked dangers are developing in parallel with dietary choices and lifestyles that are contributing to an unprecedented burden of obesity and chronic diseases.

This call aims to stimulate the formation of creative partnerships that bring together the diversity of competences required to tackle these complex problems and inform the global response through multidisciplinary research.

http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Funding/Innovations/Awards/Sustaining-Health/index.htm

Closing date for initial outline: July 25th 2014

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Rights, Equality and Citizenship in Europe

The European Commission has launched a new funding scheme around rights, equality and citizenship. This blog gives an overview of the scheme. Individual calls will be launched over the coming months.

Funding Body: Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme

Overview:

Specific objectives are to:-

  • Promote non-discrimination
  • Combat racism, xenophobia, homophobia and other forms of intolerance
  • Promote rights of persons with disabilities
  • Promote equality between women and men and gender mainstreaming
  • Prevent violence against children, young people, women and other groups at risk
  • Promote the rights of the child
  • Ensure the highest quality of data protection
  • Promote the rights deriving from Union citizenship
  • Enforce consumer rights

Support is available for training, awareness raising, networking and transnational cooperation.

Activities to be funded include:-

  • Training activities (staff exchanges, workshops, development of training modules etc.)
  • Mutual learning, cooperation activities, exchanges of good practices, peer reviews, development of ICT tools etc.
  • Awareness-raising activities, dissemination, conferences etc.
  • Support to main actors/key stakeholders

Budget: It may not be the same for all strands but many of them look like they will offer to fund 80% of project costs.

Deadlines: Separate calls are planned under each of the Programme objectives, the majority are planned for the second half of 2014, although some are set for the second quarter of the year.

Further Information: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/grants1/programmes-2014-2020/rec/index_en.htm

You can see a breakdown of upcoming calls on the International Unit website: http://www.international.ac.uk/newsletters/european-funding-bulletin-june/summaries-of-2014-work-programmes.aspx

index

 

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes

Temporary copies (on-screen) and the cached copies: not requiring permission of the copyright holder? The European Court wades in ‘Meltwater’

Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd v Newspaper Licensing Authority and others
Newspaper Licensing Authority v Meltwater [2013] UKSC 18

The Court of Justice of the European Union – Judgment made on 5 June 2014 – Temporary acts of (copyright) reproduction within section 28A of the Copyright Deigns and Patents Act 1988

This blog is an update from those previous, dealing with the above Meltwater Judgment of the UK Supreme Court (see links below). The facts can be found in the previous blogs on this subject; however it is clear that the decision is of great assistance to the consultant company (Meltwater) and its Association; the case will presumably be remitted back to the UK Court to finalise the issue of costs – what appears to be a substantial victory in terms of their accessing temporary copies of copyright works. In the writers’ view this appears to be a logical result in terms of the general functionality of the Internet, but the writer anticipates that ‘Paywalls’ and other secure access portals to copyright works, such as News media will perhaps proliferate to a greater extent. Readers will recall the gist of the UK Supreme Court decision, namely that viewing the Meltwater report(s) on the website appears to be covered by the ‘temporary copies’ exception within section 28A of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union

It will also hopefully be recalled (from the previous blog) that Lord Sumption stated that the issue in the appeal has a ‘transnational dimension’ and that the application of copyright law to internet use has important implications for many millions of people across the EU making use of what has become a basic technical facility.’

The questions referred by the UK Supreme Court were as follows (see paragraph 20 of the CJEU judgment):
In circumstances where :

an end-user views a web-page without downloading, printing or otherwise setting out to make a copy of it ;
copies of that web-page are automatically made on screen and in the internet “cache” on the end-user’s hard disk;
the creation of those copies is indispensable to the technical processes involved in correct and efficient internet browsing;

the screen copy remains on screen until the end-user moves away from the relevant web-page, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer;

the cached copy remains in the cache until it is overwritten by other material as the end-user views further web-pages, when it is automatically deleted by the normal operation of the computer;
and the copies are retained for no longer than the ordinary processes associated with internet use referred to at (iv) and (v) above continue;

Are such copies (i) temporary, (ii) transient or incidental and (iii) an integral and essential part of the technological process within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC1 ?
____________
1 Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society
The European Court of Justice’ answer:

On those grounds the Court (Fourth Chamber hereby rules:

“Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.”

The following are important to note from the CJEU Judgment:

1. Paragraph 26: the on-screen and cached copies from a computer are ‘temporary in nature;

2. Paragraph 33: on-screen and cached copies are regarded as ‘an integral part of the technological process’ at issue in the main (ie.UK) proceedings

3. Paragraph 37: the on-screen copies and the cached copies are ‘an essential part of the technological process’ at issue in the UK proceedings;

4. Paragraph 46: the period during which the on-screen copies remain in existence is limited to what is necessary for the proper functioning of the technical process used for viewing websites. Consequently the copies must be regarded as ‘transient’.

5. Paragraph 54, 60 and 63: Art 5(5) of the Directive (cf. the exemption applying provided it ‘does not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and…not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rights holders’ was not breached and could therefore be made without authorisation from the copyright holders.

The CJEU judgment (5 June 2014) can be found at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1402053921977&uri=CELEX:62013CJ0360
The Court of Appeal decision can be found at:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/890.html&query=newspaper+and+licensing&method=boolean
The decision at first instance, of Mrs Justice Proudman can be found at:
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/3099.html&query=newspaper+and+licensing&method=boolean
The UK Supreme Court Press Summary can be found at:

Click to access UKSC_2011_0202_PressSummary.pdf

The UK Supreme Court decision (lead judgment by Lord Sumption) can be found at:

Click to access UKSC_2011_0202_Judgment.pdf

and on the Bailii Site at:

Click to access 18.pdf

0.00 avg. rating (0% score) - 0 votes