{"id":668009,"date":"2026-04-24T04:13:09","date_gmt":"2026-04-24T02:13:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/"},"modified":"2026-04-24T04:13:09","modified_gmt":"2026-04-24T02:13:09","slug":"pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/","title":{"rendered":"PMAX QUEEN SHIPPING LIMITED &amp; Anor v OLAM AGRICOLA LTDA &amp; Ors"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>Mr Justice Andrew Baker : This is an approved transcript of the ruling given on 17 May 2022, at the start of the second day of a four day preliminary issues trial:- 1. This case has been carefully and successfully case-managed to this point by reference to the parties&#039; cases as pleaded as to the correct basis upon which the contributory value of the vessel should be assessed, and by reference then respectively to the various bases asserted, either as primary or alternative cases in that respect, the parties&#039; proposed figures. 2. It would be unfair and far too\u00a0late to alter now at trial in any way that materially affected the architecture of those pleaded cases the way in which the parties have put their respective positions. That does not mean that it is impossible to consider amendments because of course not every amendment will alter the structure of the pleaded case. 3. Against that background, as to my approach, I am going to take matters in a\u00a0sense in reverse order, by starting with the minor areas of dispute raised by the proposal to amend the Reply. 4. It seems to me that the proposed addition to paragraph\u00a034(a)(iv) creates no unfairness, difficulty, or prejudice to the defendants, in needing to deal with the aspect of fact raised by the proposed amendment. The question whether that head of cost is or is not properly to be taken into account if adopting the approach to contributory value advanced by the claimant at paragraph\u00a034(a) (or, by cross-reference, under paragraph\u00a034(c)) is a\u00a0matter for argument. 5. I\u00a0understood that the only objection to the introduction of a\u00a0new, cross-referencing, paragraph 34(c)(iii), was that by cross-referencing 34(a)(iii) and (iv) it would bring into the approach pleaded at paragraph\u00a034(c) the new bit of 34(a)(iv) to which objection was taken. Since I\u00a0am allowing that new bit (paragraph 34(a)(iv)(1)), I\u00a0therefore allow also the proposed new paragraph 34(c)(iii). 6. However, as regards the proposed addition at paragraph\u00a034(c)(v), the suggestion that there needs to be taken into account under the pleaded approach of paragraph\u00a034(c) \u2013 which is the point in the pleading at which the claimant sets out its case as to the appropriate figures to use, if the defendants&#039; approach as to principle is adopted \u2013 in my view it is not arguable that on that approach one ought to consider bringing into account the cost of ballasting the repaired vessel back from China to Montevideo. Further, in any event, it is far too late to introduce to the case an\u00a0investigation into what those costs would have been, the claimants&#039; case to the effect that the exercise can be done relatively straightforwardly notwithstanding. I am not prepared to take that as necessarily the case and to introduce to the case a\u00a0potentially contentious, hypothetical, factual complication which, to my mind, does not give rise to an\u00a0arguably valid element of the calculation. 7. That will mean that in the final version of the Amended Reply that should, if at all possible, now please be formalised and served between now and tomorrow morning, the various amendments that were not contentious will obviously be included. The two amendments for which I am granting permission will be included, but paragraph 35(c)(v) will not be included. In Annexures C4 and C5, the references there to the suggested cost of a\u00a0return voyage, China to Montevideo, of US$1.125\u00a0million-odd, will need to be removed and totals adjusted accordingly. 8. Subject to the checking that will be done as part of finalising that, I\u00a0think I\u00a0am right in saying that that change does not affect the claimants&#039; ability to say, if everything else they say at that point in the pleading is correct, that those Annexures still bring in an\u00a0overall figure that is below zero. Therefore, the conclusion pleaded at paragraph 34(c)(vi) \u2013 &quot;In the premises the vessel had a\u00a0negative notional contributory value&quot; \u2013 I\u00a0think will still apply and will not need to be changed. 9. I turn to what was the bigger aspect of the matter argued yesterday. In my view the pleadings are and always have been very clear, that is to say that: i) the claimant pleaded, by adopting the Average Adjustment, that the correct approach was to fix the vessel&#039;s contributory value by reference to the US$1.5\u00a0million price paid under the MoA that was in fact entered into as part of the complex, not fully arm&#039;s length, arrangements made within the Cyprus Sea Lines Group as part of dealing with the aftermath of the grounding; ii) the challenge in the Defence was to deny that that is the appropriate approach \u2013 indeed to assert that the MoA price is not relevant \u2013 and to assert instead that as a\u00a0matter of law the approach I\u00a0shall be saying should be adopted is to deduct from the vessel&#039;s sound market value as at the date of the discharge of the cargo at Montevideo the costs of the repairs actually undertaken, subject to an\u00a0assessment of whether they were reasonable; iii) it is plain from the case management discussions and the directions granted for these preliminary issues this week that that was the court&#039;s understanding and the parties&#039; understanding of what was involved by the defendants&#039; case as to principle, and that therefore the factual exercise to be engaged in at this hearing by reference to the defendants&#039; pleaded approach was one of assessing what the court would say it should take as the reasonable cost involved in the repairs actually effected; iv) the response, by way of reply \u2013 strictly by way of amendment of the claimants\u2019 approach, but I\u00a0am not troubled in a\u00a0general average case by the fact that this came in through the Reply because the claimants chose in the first instance to rely on the Adjustment and see what points of challenge were raised \u2013 was to plead four cases in a\u00a0waterfall of alternatives. The primary and second alternative cases, as pleaded, paragraphs\u00a034(a) and 34(c), are the same in concept, that is to say they plead a\u00a0case that the contributory value of the vessel is to be taken as her sound value, less the reasonable costs of the repairs actually effected. The difference between the two is that the primary case, paragraph\u00a034(a), asserted that the sound vessel value to be taken was that of the post-repair sound vessel in\u00a0February\u00a02019 as distinct from that of the hypothetically undamaged vessel in\u00a0February\u00a02018 when the cargo was discharged, that being the starting point which would match that of the defendants&#039; approach and the starting point therefore of the second alternative case under paragraph\u00a034(c); v) the third alternative case under paragraph\u00a034(d), not now in the event pursued at trial this week, was to fall back ultimately, if necessary, upon the approach adopted by the adjusters in the adjustment, the MoA price of US$1.5\u00a0million; vi) in between the primary and second alternative case, as they were pleaded in the Reply, at paragraph\u00a034(b) there is a\u00a0case to the effect that the proper approach in this case is to take the value of the vessel as at\u00a0February\u00a02019 but assessed as a\u00a0vessel to be scrapped. As it happens, in the event, that now gives rise to no factual issue before me as to value because of the extent to which expert evidence has proved non-contentious, and because the claimants have made clear, since pleading the various alternative approaches in the Reply, that although all of them, other than the MoA price approach, would result in a\u00a0figure below, indeed they say well below, that US$1.5\u00a0million, the claimants do not seek to amend their ultimate claim so as to claim a\u00a0greater contribution in general average than a\u00a0contribution based upon a\u00a0contributory value of US$1.5\u00a0million. 10. Against the background of that analysis of the pleadings, my judgment is clear as to what is and is not open to the claimant, although the effect of that judgment is, it may be said, a\u00a0touch nuanced. I\u00a0express it as follows: i) It is not open to the claimants on their pleaded case to argue\u00a0\u2013 and I\u00a0will not entertain argument to the effect \u2013 that the proper approach in this case is to fix a\u00a0price that a\u00a0reasonable seller and reasonable buyer would have agreed for the sale of the vessel as she was in Montevideo in damaged condition on completion of the discharge of the cargo, with the range of different hypothetical factual enquiries and assessments, including expert assessments, that might have been required to investigate properly any such positive case. ii) However, as the argument demonstrated yesterday, the claimants at no stage specified in their pleading, nor were they asked to particularise or otherwise explain as part of their pleading, the basis upon which they asserted that scrap value, now agreed to be certainly no more than and almost certainly less than the US$1.5\u00a0million by reference to which they ultimately make their claims, is the appropriate value to take. iii) In those circumstances, in principle it is open to the claimants to argue, as best Mr\u00a0Hill QC for closing conceives he is able to argue it on the material that is available at this trial, that it is sufficiently clear that no reasonable buyer would have entertained anything other than a\u00a0scrap purchase, that the court should adopt a\u00a0scrap valuation. iv) In the context of any such argument, it remains open to Mr\u00a0Thomas QC, to the fullest extent he conceives he is able to do so, to invite the court to consider whether the nature of the materials that the parties, pursuant to the case management directions, have thrown at this preliminary issues trial, enables the court to reach any satisfactory, positive conclusion of that sort, such as to inform a\u00a0finding in the claimants&#039; favour that scrap value is the correct approach to take. That is, of course, over and above what will be, as I\u00a0understand it, Mr\u00a0Thomas&#039;s primary case in any event, that none of this comes into play because what he has pleaded as the correct approach, which is the claimants&#039; second alternative as pleaded in the reply, paragraph\u00a034(c), is, as a\u00a0matter of law, the approach that must be adopted, because the vessel was in fact repaired so as to become again in sound trading condition. 11. If Mr Thomas QC is wrong on that, which is his primary legal argument, then, as I\u00a0say, in responding to the argument from Mr\u00a0Hill QC as to why scrap value should be taken at paragraph\u00a034(b), it will be open to Mr\u00a0Thomas to place such reliance as he perceives is appropriate upon the nature of the material available to the court, and matters that are not available for the court or have not been explored as part of testing the argument, for a consideration of whether that material enables the court to reach a\u00a0given conclusion which Mr\u00a0Hill may invite it to reach. None of this is to suppose that the argument Mr\u00a0Hill may present in that regard is necessarily dependent wholly upon any one particular aspect of the evidence. But, as I\u00a0say, it seems to me he must be entitled to pursue, by way of argument upon the materials available such as they are, why it is his clients say that the scrap value now agreed between the experts to be certainly not more than the US$1.5\u00a0million on which the claimants have based their case, is the correct value to take. 12. To whatever extent that means \u2013 and it may indeed mean this \u2013 that elements of what Mr\u00a0Hill QC has presented in his skeleton argument for opening, under a\u00a0heading of what, as pleaded, was his second alternative case, paragraph\u00a034(c) of the Reply, will need in closing, in effect, to be repackaged as points he relies on, not for putting a\u00a0figure on that alternative case as his alternative case but as reasons why the court should say what is now his primary case (scrap value) should be adopted, so be it. Counsel certainly are, and I\u00a0hope their court is, mentally agile enough to be able to cope with that adjustment to the packaging of the various points that arise under different headings within the case.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<hr class=\"kji-sep\" \/>\n<p class=\"kji-source-links\"><strong>Sources officielles :<\/strong> <a class=\"kji-source-link\" href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk\/ewhc\/comm\/2022\/1198\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n<p class=\"kji-license-note\"><em>Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Mr Justice Andrew Baker : This is an approved transcript of the ruling given on 17 May 2022, at the start of the second day of a four day preliminary issues trial:- 1. This case has been carefully and successfully case-managed to this point by reference to the parties&#8217; cases as pleaded as to the correct basis upon which the&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7665],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7625],"kji_keyword":[11802,7975,8028,7927,9586],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-668009","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-high-court-commercial-court","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-commercial","kji_keyword-approach","kji_keyword-paragraph","kji_keyword-pleaded","kji_keyword-value","kji_keyword-vessel","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.5 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>PMAX QUEEN SHIPPING LIMITED &amp; Anor v OLAM AGRICOLA LTDA &amp; Ors - 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\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"PMAX QUEEN SHIPPING LIMITED &amp; Anor v OLAM AGRICOLA LTDA &amp; Ors\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Mr Justice Andrew Baker : This is an approved transcript of the ruling given on 17 May 2022, at the start of the second day of a four day preliminary issues trial:- 1. This case has been carefully and successfully case-managed to this point by reference to the parties&#039; cases as pleaded as to the correct basis upon which the...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/\" \/>\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=\"10 \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\\\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\\\/\",\"name\":\"PMAX QUEEN SHIPPING LIMITED &amp; Anor v OLAM AGRICOLA LTDA &amp; Ors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-24T02:13:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\\\/#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\":\"PMAX QUEEN SHIPPING LIMITED &amp; Anor v OLAM AGRICOLA LTDA &amp; Ors\"}]},{\"@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":"PMAX QUEEN SHIPPING LIMITED &amp; Anor v OLAM AGRICOLA LTDA &amp; Ors - 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\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"PMAX QUEEN SHIPPING LIMITED &amp; Anor v OLAM AGRICOLA LTDA &amp; Ors","og_description":"Mr Justice Andrew Baker : This is an approved transcript of the ruling given on 17 May 2022, at the start of the second day of a four day preliminary issues trial:- 1. This case has been carefully and successfully case-managed to this point by reference to the parties' cases as pleaded as to the correct basis upon which the...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/","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":"10 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/","name":"PMAX QUEEN SHIPPING LIMITED &amp; Anor v OLAM AGRICOLA LTDA &amp; Ors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-24T02:13:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/pmax-queen-shipping-limited-anor-v-olam-agricola-ltda-ors\/#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":"PMAX QUEEN SHIPPING LIMITED &amp; Anor v OLAM AGRICOLA LTDA &amp; Ors"}]},{"@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\/668009","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=668009"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=668009"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=668009"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=668009"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=668009"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=668009"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=668009"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=668009"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}