{"id":578004,"date":"2026-04-16T14:45:38","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T12:45:38","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/"},"modified":"2026-04-16T14:45:38","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T12:45:38","slug":"mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/","title":{"rendered":"MH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the case is REMITTED to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing by a fresh tribunal. DIRECTIONS A. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at an oral hearing. B. The First-tier Tribunal is directed to explore with MH how to arrange for his appeal to be dealt with effectively as a remote oral hearing. C. The new tribunal should not involve any of the panel members previously involved in considering this appeal on 26 March 2024. D. The new tribunal must not take account of circumstances that were not obtaining at the times the (then) Secretary of State made his decision on 15 June 2023 that MH was not entitled to personal independence payment: see section 12(8)(b) of the Social Security Act 1998 and R(IB) 2\/04 at paragraph 188. Later evidence is admissible, provided it relates to the circumstances at the time of the decision: see R(DLA) 2\/01 and R(DLA) 3\/01. E. If the parties have any further written evidence to put before the tribunal, this should be sent to the relevant HMCTS regional tribunal office within one month of the issue of this decision. F. The tribunal hearing the remitted appeal is not bound in any way by the decision of the previous First-tier Tribunal. Depending on the findings of fact it makes, the new tribunal may reach the same or a different outcome from the previous tribunal. G. Copies of this decision, the permission to appeal decision, and the submissions on behalf of both parties (dated 06 February 2025 and 17 February 2025) shall be added to the bundle to be placed before the First-tier Tribunal hearing the remitted appeal. These Directions may be supplemented by later directions by a tribunal judge, registrar, or case worker, in the Social Entitlement Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal. REASONS FOR DECISION Factual background 1. On 17 February 2023, MH made a claim for personal independence payment (\u201cPIP\u201d). The Department for Work and Pensions (\u201cDWP\u201d) administers claims on behalf of the Secretary of State. 2. DWP invited MH to take part in a medical assessment by telephone. This took place on 31 May 2023. Having received advice from the healthcare professional who carried out the assessment, on 15 June 2023, DWP decided MH scored 2 points for daily living activities (for managing toilet needs) and no points for mobility activities. As the threshold for either the daily living component or the mobility component of PIP is 8 points, DWP decided MH was not entitled to an award of PIP. 3. MH appealed DWP\u2019s decision. On 26 March 2024, his appeal was determined on the basis of the paper evidence, by a First-tier Tribunal (\u201cFTT\u201d). The FTT confirmed DWP\u2019s decision that MH scored 2 points for managing toilet needs but no points for any other PIP activity. The FTT therefore refused MH\u2019s appeal. The FTT produced a Statement of Reasons for its decision on 28 June 2024. 4. On 07 October 2024, the Upper Tribunal received MH\u2019s application for permission to appeal against the FTT\u2019s decision. Although it was received one day late, I admitted MH\u2019s application for consideration. Permission to appeal 5. In a decision dated 24 December 2024, I granted MH permission to appeal against the FTT\u2019s decision. I granted permission, in particular, regarding the following grounds: (a) Determining the appeal on the basis of the papers, and the explanation for that decision: I considered it arguable that while the FTT had recorded in its Statement of Reasons that it was fair and just to decide the appeal on the papers, it had not explained why it considered that it could fairly do so. The FTT may therefore have failed to meet the requirements of rules 2 and 27 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (SEC) Rules 2008 as explained in the Upper Tribunal decisions of DT v SSWP (UC) [2019] UKUT 268 (AAC)and in MM v SSWP (ESA) [2011] UKUT 334 (AAC); (b) Adequacy of factual findings by the FTT and \/ or reasons overall: it appeared from the appeal bundle that MH was describing pain and consequential fatigue from his Crohn\u2019s Disease, with separate lower back pain, and mental health symptoms that were most substantial when he experienced a flare up of his Crohn\u2019s disease. It was not clear from the FTT\u2019s Statement of Reasons which symptoms the FTT decided MH had, and how they affected him on good and bad days; (c) How the FTT interpreted the medical evidence MH had provided: MH agued the FTT wrongly interpreted letters dated 14 March 2022 and 09 February 2023 as stating he experienced no symptoms or pain. The letters related to MH\u2019s Crohn\u2019s Disease, and it was not clear that the gastroenterology specialists who wrote them were dealing with all the symptoms MH might experience from his various medical conditions (which he had described as being more diverse than his Crohn\u2019s Disease). If the FTT had interpreted these medical letters as confirming MH experienced no pain or symptoms from any of his medical conditions, it may have made an error of law; and (d) Adequacy of factual findings about MH\u2019s ability to carry out specific PIP activities: it was arguable the FTT had failed to resolve the conflict in the evidence about whether MH required a long-handled sponge to wash and bathe. It was also arguable the FTT had failed to explain why it did not consider a higher scoring descriptor than 5.b (2 points for needing an aid) applied for managing toilet needs. It was arguable the FTT had failed to evaluate sufficiently, or explained its reasoning about, whether MH experienced difficulties engaging with people face to face as a result of anxiety potentially caused by MH\u2019s physical conditions and symptoms (see PM v SSWP (PIP) [2017] UKUT 00154 (AAC). The Secretary of State\u2019s submissions 6. Mrs R. Jagger is the Secretary of State\u2019s representative in these proceedings. She supports the appeal to the Upper Tribunal in a helpful written submission dated 06 February 2025. 7. Mrs Jagger invites the Upper Tribunal to set aside the FTT\u2019s decision dated 26 March 2024 for containing material errors of law and to remit the appeal for hearing by a differently constituted tribunal with appropriate directions for its redetermination. Mrs Jagger supports the appeal for the reasons set out below. 8. Determining the appeal on the basis of the papers: The FTT explained in its Statement of Reasons that it found the medical evidence inconsistent with the limitations MH described (and listed these). Mrs Jagger argues that as the FTT had questions around MHs evidence and identified inconsistencies in other evidence, it could have used its inquisitorial duty to explore these points further with MH. The FTT also failed to provide reasoning clarifying why it considered it fair and just to determine the appeal on the papers alone, including in circumstances where there were factors (like the inconsistencies) that pointed the other way. 9. Adequacy of factual findings and reasoning to support the FTT\u2019s decision: Mrs Jagger submits the FTT found MH only claimed limitations to PIP daily living activities 1, 2, 4 and 6 and mobility activity 2 on \u201cbad days\u201d and that these were not on the majority of days in the required period. Mrs Jagger observes, however, that the PA4 medical report for DWP dated 31 May 2023 recorded that MH experienced lower back and neck pain every day, which worsened when he moved around. 10. Mrs Jagger submits that the FTT incorrectly interpreted MH\u2019s mandatory reconsideration request letter dated 28 July 2023 as stating he did not have any problems with a number of PIP activities because he did not have bad days as a result of his Crohn\u2019s Disease on the majority of days. She submits it is unclear whether the FTT had regard to the effects of MH\u2019s other health conditions such as his back and neck pain, which appear to be present every day. 11. How the FTT interpreted the medical evidence in the appeal: Mrs Jagger argues the gastroenterology clinic letter dated 09 February 023 described MH as having no symptoms at all in respect of his Crohn\u2019s Disease. Mrs Jagger submits it is not clear that this letter was addressing MH\u2019s other symptoms from his back and neck pain. 12. Mrs Jagger submits that while the other medical letter (dated 14 March 2022) does refer to back pain and that it resolved with physiotherapy, the letter in question was over a year before the date DWP made its decision. Mrs Jagger argues the FTT should have explored if MH\u2019s back pain had worsened since that letter and make sufficient findings about the symptoms he experienced at the date of DWP\u2019s decision on 15 June 2023. 13. Mrs Jagger submits that because the Secretary of State supports the appeal on the grounds covered above, the other grounds on which I gave MH permission to appeal will be addressed by having his appeal decided by a new First-tier Tribunal. MH\u2019s submissions 14. MH\u2019s submissions explain that he was never told he could have requested a video or telephone hearing of his appeal. MH writes that the reason he gave for not attending an oral hearing was that he believed it would be in person, in Birmingham, and he would not be able to manage the effects of his Crohn\u2019s Disease and attend a face-to-face hearing of his appeal. MH explained that he would also find the idea of travelling to Birmingham stressful. 15. MH also submitted that he had provided evidence of his conditions that showed there were not more good days than bad days, but that with regular physiotherapy, he can cope better with bad days and better days, but always with symptoms remaining. MH submits that the FTT incorrectly interpreted the evidence he provided in support of his appeal. 16. Finally, MH submits that if the Upper Tribunal considered it needed to have a hearing of his appeal, he would like it to be by telephone and in private, rather than travelling and in public. He explained this was because of his Crohn\u2019s Disease and its symptoms. Why there was no oral hearing of this appeal 17. MH said he would like an oral hearing of this appeal, but only if the Upper Tribunal deemed it essential (and if so, by telephone). The Secretary of State did not request an oral hearing. I took these preferences into account and considered the appeal file. I decided the interests of justice did not require an oral hearing. There is already a substantial level of agreement between the parties about errors of law by the FTT. I therefore determined the appeal on the papers. It was proportionate to do so. My decision 18. At the permission stage, I only needed to be persuaded that it was arguable with a realistic (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of success that the FTT had made an error of law in a way that was material. 19. At this substantive stage, I need to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the FTT did make an error or errors of law that were material. 20. I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the FTT made a material error of law in relation to the appeal grounds addressed by the Secretary of State at paragraphs 8 to 13 above and dealt with in more detail by Mrs Jagger\u2019s submission dated 06 February 2025. 21. I consider it is proportionate to allow MH\u2019s appeal on those grounds, without considering the additional grounds where I gave permission to appeal. Those matters will be subsumed into the rehearing of MH\u2019s appeal. Conclusion, including disposal 22. Having decided the FTT\u2019s decision involved material errors of law, it is appropriate to exercise my discretion to set aside the Tribunal\u2019s decision dated 26 March 2024 under section 12(2)(a) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Having done so, section 12(2)(b) of that Act provides that I must either remit the case to the First-tier Tribunal with directions for their reconsideration or remake the decision. 23. Neither party has asked me to remake the FTT\u2019s decision. In any event, it is necessary for further facts to be found. The First-tier Tribunal is best placed to evaluate the evidence, including using its medical and disability expertise, and to make appropriate findings of fact. 24. I therefore remit MH\u2019s appeal for rehearing before a new First-tier Tribunal. It will make a fresh decision about whether he met the conditions for entitlement to PIP at the date of DWP\u2019s decision on 15 June 2023. 25. Although I have set aside the Tribunal\u2019s decision dated 26 March 2024, I am not making any findings, or expressing any view, about whether MH should be entitled to PIP. The next tribunal will need to hear evidence and make its own findings of fact and provide its reasoning for the decision it reaches. 26. I have made a direction for the First-tier Tribunal to explore options with MH for holding a video or telephone hearing of his appeal. MH may find it helpful to contact the First-tier Tribunal directly, as well, in order to request this. Judith Butler Judge of the Upper Tribunal Authorised by the Judge for issue: 22 April 2025<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the case is REMITTED to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing by a fresh tribunal. DIRECTIONS A. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[9033],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,7622,9692,7916,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-578004","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-upper-tribunal-administrative-appeals-chamber","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-first-tier","kji_keyword-hearing","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nMH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"MH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the case is REMITTED to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing by a fresh tribunal. DIRECTIONS A. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"11 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\\\/\",\"name\":\"MH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-16T12:45:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"MH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"MH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"MH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)","og_description":"As the decision of the First-tier Tribunal involved the making of an error of law, it is SET ASIDE under section 12(2)(a) and (b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the case is REMITTED to the First-tier Tribunal for rehearing by a fresh tribunal. DIRECTIONS A. The case is remitted to the First-tier Tribunal for reconsideration at...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"11 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/","name":"MH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP) - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-16T12:45:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/mh-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions-pip\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"MH v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (PIP)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/578004","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=578004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=578004"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=578004"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=578004"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=578004"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=578004"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=578004"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=578004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}