The GridPP Collaboration is building a UK computing Grid for particle physics, as part of the international effort towards computing for the Large Hadron Collider. The project, funded by the UK Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (PPARC), began in September 2001 and completed its first phase 3 years later. GridPP is a collaboration of approximately 100 researchers in 19 UK university particle physics groups, the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils and CERN, reflecting the strategic importance of the project. In collaboration with other European and US efforts, the first phase of the project demonstrated the feasibility of developing, deploying and operating a Grid-based computing system to meet the UK needs of the Large Hadron Collider experiments. This note describes the work undertaken to achieve this goal. S Supplementary documentation is available from stacks.iop.org/JPhysG/32/N1. References to sections S1, S2.1, etc are to sections within this online supplement.

No abstract

The French jurist Pierre Lepaulle argued that the common law trust could be best understood, in civilian terms, as a patrimony by appropriation. This argument has been influential in some civilian receptions of the trust. In fact, Lepaulle misunderstood the nature of the common law trust, which is founded on the obligations owed by the trustee in relation to the trust property. The rights of beneficiaries in the common law trust are neither purely personal rights against the trustee, nor are they real rights in the trust property, but rather they are rights over the rights which the trustee holds as trust property; they have a proprietary character since they persist against many third party transferees of the trust property. This analysis of the common law trust leads to the conclusion that it would be a fundamental change to turn the common law trust into a legal person. More generally, it is argued that any legal system that characterizes the trust as a legal person will find that it has ceased to understand the trust as a fundamental legal institution.

THE decision of the Court of Appeal in FHR European Ventures LLP v Mankarious [2013] EWCA Civ 17 is the latest instalment in the debate over whether an unlawful profit acquired by a fiduciary gives rise to a trust, or only to a personal obligation to disgorge the amount of the profit. In A.-G. for Hong Kong v Reid [1994] 1 A.C. 324, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council refused to follow Lister & Co v Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch.D. 1, and held that a trust arises. In Sinclair Investments (UK) Ltd. v Versailles Trade Finance Ltd. [2011] EWCA Civ 347 [2012] Ch. 453, the Court of Appeal refused to follow Reid, and held that only a personal obligation was created. The Court in FHR was bound by its decision in Sinclair, but it distinguished that decision and declared a constructive trust over the secret profit. The law is left in an unclear state, as noted by Etherton C. ([116]). The defendant Cedar Capital Partners LLC (Cedar), of which the principal was the defendant Mankarious, provided consultancy services. The claimants, together called the "Investor Group" in the judgments, were clients of Cedar, who were seeking to acquire a long leasehold interest in the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel. Cedar was in the position of an agent, owing fiduciary obligations to the Investor Group. After acquiring the leasehold for E211.5 million, the Investor Group learned that Cedar had also made another agency agreement with the vendor, to assist the vendor with the sale. The vendor knew that Cedar was acting for the Investor Group, but the Investor Group did not know that Cedar's agreement with the vendor provided for a fee of E10 million, payable to Cedar should the sale to the Investor Group take place. Cedar having received its fee from the vendor, the Investor Group brought these proceedings to claim it. They succeeded at trial before Simon J. ([2011] EWHC 2308), although their claim for a constructive trust was dismissed on the basis of Sinclair ([2011] EWHC 2999). It was that ruling that was reversed by the Court of Appeal. Pill L.J. noted correctly (at [62]) that Cedar was clearly in a conflict of interest and duty, since its self-interest in acquiring the fee conflicted with the duty of loyalty that it owed to the Investor Group in advising the latter. However, the rules about conflicts were not the most important ones in this case. When a conflicted fiduciary enters into a contract or other legal act, through the use of legal powers held in