{"id":562723,"date":"2026-04-15T00:02:33","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:02:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T00:02:33","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:02:33","slug":"holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","title":{"rendered":"Holyrood Dental Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. This appeal (or \u201creference\u201d adopting the statutory terminology) concerns a decision of The Pensions Regulator (the \u201cRegulator\u201d) to issue a fixed penalty notice of \u00a3400 to the Appellant on 15 October 2024 (the \u201cFPN\u201d). The FPN was issued because the Appellant had failed to comply in time with the terms of a compliance notice issued by the Regulator on 19 August 2024, namely, to complete re-enrolment and re-declaration with the Regulator. 2. The Tribunal considered a bundle of 125 pages. The hearing of the appeal was held by CVP. I was satisfied that it was fair and appropriate to hold the hearing in this matter. The Appellant attended through a director, Mrs Tokarzewska-Zadora. The Regulator attended through its lawyer, Mrs Jones, together with a witness, Miss Doherty. I was grateful to all the parties for the assistance they provided to me at the hearing. 3. Following the hearing, the Regulator made short additional representations on a point of law which arose at the hearing, as further set out at paragraph 19 below. On 29 January 2026, I directed that the Appellant be given an opportunity to make written representations in response by Friday 6 February 2026. No written representations were received from the Appellant. The Relevant Legal Principles 4. The relevant legal principles have been pithily summarised by Judge Sanger in a number of her decisions \u2013 see for example, Nevona Limited v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UK FTT 00470 (GRC) and Sharp Minds Communications Limited v The Pensions Regulator [2025] UKFTT 00693 (GRC). While not binding on this Tribunal, I agree with, and adopt, the summary of the law set out in those decisions, which is reflected below. 5. The Pensions Act 2008 (the \u201c2008 Act\u201d) requires employers to enrol \u201cjob holders\u201d in occupational or workplace personal pension schemes. The Regulator monitors compliance with these requirements. 6. Under s.11 of the 2008 Act, an employer who is subject to automatic enrolment duties must give prescribed information to the Regulator, known as a declaration of compliance. This information, and the time periods in which it must be provided, are prescribed by the Employers' Duties (Registration and Compliance) Regulations 2010 (the \u201c2010 Regulations\u201d): 6.1. Regulation 3(1) requires the employer to provide information to the Respondent within five months of the \u201cstaging date\u201d (the date on which automatic enrolment legislation first applies, usually the date on which staff are employed). 6.2. Regulation 4(1) requires the employer to provide re-enrolment information within five months of every third anniversary of the staging date. 7. Under s.35 of the 2008 Act, the Regulator can issue a Compliance Notice if an employer has contravened one of more of its employer duties. A Compliance Notice requires the employer to take certain steps in order to comply with these duties. It will usually specify a date by which this must be done. 8. The Regulator can issue a FPN if an employer has failed to comply with a compliance notice (s.40 of the 2008 Act). This requires the employer to pay a penalty within a specified period. The amount of a fixed penalty is \u00a3400, set by regulation 12 of the 2010 Regulations. 9. The Regulator sends notices by post to an employer\u2019s \u201cproper address\u201d (s.303(3)(c) of the Pensions Act 2004 (the \u201c2004 Act\u201d)). The registered office or principal office address is the proper address on which to serve notices on a body corporate, as set out in s.303(6)(a) of the 2004 Act (applied by s.144A of the 2008 Act). Under regulation 15(4) of the 2010 Regulations, there is a presumption that a notice is received by a person to whom it is addressed. This includes compliance and fixed penalty notices issued under the Act. 10. An employer can make a reference to the Tribunal in respect of the issue of a notice and\/or the amount of the penalty payable under the notice (s.44 of the 2008 Act). This is only permitted if the Regulator has reviewed the notice or if an application for a review has been made to the Regulator under s.43. Under s.103 (3) of the Pensions Act 2004, the Tribunal must then \u201cdetermine what (if any) is the appropriate action for the Regulator to take in relation to the matter referred to it.\u201d The Tribunal must make its own decision on the evidence presented to it (which may be different from the evidence presented to the Regulator). In considering a penalty notice, it is proper to take \u201creasonable excuse\u201d for compliance failures into account (Pensions Regulator v Strathmore Medical Practice [2018] UKUT 104 (AAC)). 11. In an appeal, the burden of proof rests with the Appellant. The relevant standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. 12. On determining the reference, the Tribunal must remit the matter to the Regulator with such directions (if any) as it considers appropriate. The Appeal 13. The Appellant\u2019s Notice of Appeal is dated 30 October 2024. In its grounds of appeal, the Appellant accepts that it received the FPN dated 15 October 2024 on 17 October 2024. However, the Appellant disputes that it received the compliance notice dated 19 August 2024 (the Compliance Notice\u201d) to which the FPN relates. The Appellant said it acted immediately upon receiving the FPN and filed the re-enrolment and re-declaration of compliance on 18 October 2024. The Appellant complains that when reviewing the FPN, the Regulator did not provide any confirmation, such as a tracking number for the Compliance Notice was indeed posted and delivered to the Appellant\u2019s address. The Appellant emphasises that its treats its statutory duties with seriousness and never ignore important correspondence from relevant regulators or the tax authorities. The Appellant contends that it is unfair to be penalized for issues which were outside its control. 14. The Regulator has a filed a detailed response dated 17 December 2024 which opposes the appeal. In summary, the Regulator\u2019s position is that: 14.1. The Appellant\u2019s second re-enrolment anniversary date was 10 March 2024. This meant that the Appellant\u2019s earliest re-enrolment date was 10 March 2023 and the latest was 9 June 2024. The deadline for the Appellant to complete and submit its second cycle re-declaration of compliance was 9 August 2024, i.e. five months from 10 March 2024. 14.2. The Regulator issued the Compliance Notice dated 19 August 2024. The Compliance Notice set out the steps which were required to be taken and extended the deadline for compliance until 30 September 2024. The Regulator did not receive a response. 14.3. The Regulator attempted to telephone the Appellant on 5 September 2024 but was unsuccessful. 14.4. The deadline for re-declaration having passed on 30 September 2024, the FPN was issued on 15 October 2024. 14.5. The Appellant sought a review of the FPN on 18 October 2024. The same day, the Appellant submitted its re-declaration of compliance, which was acknowledged by the Regulator on 19 October 2024. 14.6. As a responsible employer, the Appellant ought to have been aware with its legal duties under the 2008 Act. The Appellant failed to comply with those duties within the relevant time frames. As such it was fair reasonable and appropriate for the Compliance Notice and the FPN to be issued when the Appellant did not comply with its statutory duties of re-declaration. 14.7. The Compliance Notice and FPN were correctly served on the Appellant. The Appellant has not provided evidence to rebut the presumption of service set out in s.144A of the 2008 Act, s.303(6) of the Pensions Act 2004 and Regulation 1(5) of the 2010 Regulations. There is a further presumption that a notice is received by the person to whom it is addressed. 14.8. A mere assertion by the Appellant that the Compliance Notice was not received is not sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions outlined above, relying on London Borough of Southwark v (1) Runa Akhtar v (2) Stel LLC 2017 UKUT (\u201cSouthwark\u201d). Relying on this decision, the Regulator contends that the Appellant has not provided any proof or evidence to explain that it did not receive the Compliance Notice. 14.9. The Regulator contends that there is no requirement to set out proof of posting or to send mail by registered or recorded delivery. It relies on the non-binding decision of the FTT in Al Khawaja Ltd v The Pensions Regulator (PEN\/2019.0175) in support of this principle. 14.10. In any event, two reminders were sent to the Appellant in December 2023 and May 2024. Both advised of the deadline for re-declaration of compliance, and neither letter was returned as undelivered. Regardless, the Appellant had an obligation to inform the Regulator of their automatic enrolment and re-enrolment arrangements under s.11 of the 2008 Act, and the Appellant has failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance. The Appellant should be aware of their declaration duties regardless of whether communications regarding reminders are sent or received. 14.11. In a previous re-declaration of compliance cycle, the Appellant had been late in making the relevant declarations, albeit it did so in sufficient time that regulatory action was not taken. 14.12. The FPN did not itself specify what steps were necessary to take to meet the requirements of the Compliance Notice. Yet the Appellant was very quickly able to submit its Re-Declaration of Compliance, without apparent support, which suggests it must have received at least some previous correspondence relating to compliance. 14.13. Taken together, the Appellant had not rebutted the presumption that the Compliance Notice had not been properly served and received at the Appellant\u2019s registered office. 14.14. In addition, there was no reasonable excuse for the Appellant\u2019s failure to comply with its statutory duties. The legal duty exists on the Appellant regardless of whether it receives the reminders sent out by the Regulator. 14.15. In all the circumstances, the Fixed Penalty Notice should not be revoked. There was no reasonable excuse for non-compliance and the decision was fair reasonable and proportionate. Discussion and Findings 15. At the hearing, Mrs Tokarzewska-Zadora gave oral evidence on behalf of the Appellant, albeit she had not provided a written witness statement. She explained that the Appellant had not received the Compliance Notice and that the Appellant normally received similar letters from HMRC. There was no reason for the Appellant not to reply to and engage with formal letters relating to its business. 16. Mrs Tokarzewska-Zadora also explained that the Appellant had previously had experience of receiving post for a neighbouring hotel which had previously had a similar trading name to the Appellant, but that this problem had not occurred since approximately February 2024, when the hotel had changed its name. She also explained that the previous delay with re-enrolment in 2021 occurred as she had been very busy at the time. 17. The Regulator had provided a witness statement from Miss Cathy Doherty dated 21 February 2025 with exhibits. The Appellant was given an opportunity at the hearing to question Miss Doherty on the contents of her witness statement but declined to do so. 18. Miss Doherty\u2019s evidence, which I accept as clear, candid, and truthful shows, in summary that: 18.1. TPR, and its outsourced contractor, Paragon, have detailed and robust checking mechanisms in place for bulk and automated mailing to ensure that correspondence is sent and that any errors in the process can be identified and corrected. If errors on the automated process take place (for example a letter or notice is not created for dispatch) this will be identified in the reconciliation process which is carried out each day. 18.2. When the Appellant failed to comply with the re-declaration on 9 August 2024, this triggered the creation and sending of (a) an Information Provision Breach re-registration notice on 19 August 2024 with a deadline date of 30 September 2024 and (b) the FPN on 15 October 2024. Both were issued to the registered address of the Appellant and no correspondence was returned as undelivered. Screenshots of the electronic versions of the correspondence are exhibited to the statement. 18.3. There is no indication within the Regulator\u2019s systems that any of the notices or FPNs issued on the same day as those concerning the Appellant have had any problems been received by the recipient businesses. 18.4. Accordingly, Miss Doherty is \u201cvery confident\u201d that the notices referred to were despatched correctly. 19. At the hearing, the Regulator, through Mrs Jones, submitted that the Upper Tribunal\u2019s decision in Southwark, to the effect that a mere assertion of non-receipt would not suffice to rebut the statutory presumption of service was highly persuasive and that I should follow it. Following the hearing, the Regulator made a further short written submission to the effect that the reasoning in Southwark at [64] \u2013 [86] was binding on the FTT. The Appellant was given the opportunity to, but did not, make any submissions in response. 20. It is correct that this part of the Upper Tribunal\u2019s decision concerns the operation of s.7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. However, as the Upper Tribunal\u2019s analysis at paragraph 66 to 76 show, this was specifically in the context of the statutory background and context of s.20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Regulator is perhaps on firmer ground when it comes to paragraphs 77 to 86 of the decision in Southwark which concern the specific evidence in that case relating to the adequacy of service and the operation of the presumption in s.7 of the Interpretation Act 1978. However, again that was very much in the context of the specific evidence which was given in that case by the Appellant. 21. Ultimately, I do not need to decide whether I am bound by the Upper Tribunal\u2019s decision in Southwark and accordingly do not do so. This is for the simple reason that I do not accept, on the facts of this case, that the Appellant\u2019s evidence is sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of service. I broadly accept the arguments put forward by the Regulator in opposition to this appeal. This is because: 21.1. I am satisfied that the evidence shows that the Compliance Notice was sent to the correct address for the Appellant and that the statutory presumption of service is engaged. 21.2. The Appellant\u2019s evidence to rebut this is very limited. Mrs Tokarzewska-Zadora does deny that she received it. I have no reason to doubt her honesty, but there are also a myriad of other explanations which might explain her evidence. As the Upper Tribunal noted in Southwark this can include fading memories, envelopes being mislaid, and items of post being overlooked. The Appellant\u2019s evidence relating to mix-ups in its post with a neighbouring hotel does not assist the Appellant because on its own case, this was resolved by February 2024 when the hotel changed its name. Accordingly, there was no reason for post to be mislaid several months later when the Compliance Notice was sent out in August 2024. 21.3. I also consider there is force in the two points raised by the Regulator in written submissions, namely that (a) there had previously been a late re-declaration by the Appellant which suggests a somewhat less than ordered approach to administration by the Appellant and (b) the Appellant had not adequately explained how it was able to achieve re-declaration so promptly upon receipt of the FPN, even though the FPN itself did not specify the regulatory matter which needed to be remedied. I agree that this suggests that the Appellant may have received earlier correspondence from the Regulator about the need for redeclaration. Indeed, I consider it very unlikely that the Appellant did not receive any of the reminders or notices sent by the Regulator prior to the FPN, since they were all sent to the correct address. 22. Accordingly, I am satisfied that (a) the Compliance Notice and the FPN were properly served by the Regulator at the correct address and (b) there is no reasonable excuse for the Appellant\u2019s failure to comply with its legal obligations. In this regard, I also accept the Regulator\u2019s argument, as a general proposition, that it is incumbent on employers to ensure that they are compliant with their regulatory obligations, irrespective of whether they receive a reminder from the Regulator. Employers should have adequate internal processes and mechanisms in place (such as a system of calendar reminders) to achieve this and to mitigate against risks of non-compliance. Conclusion 23. The Fixed Penalty Notice is upheld. The matter is remitted to the Regulator. No further directions are required.<\/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":"

1. This appeal (or \u201creference\u201d adopting the statutory terminology) concerns a decision of The Pensions Regulator (the \u201cRegulator\u201d) to issue a fixed penalty notice of \u00a3400 to the Appellant on 15 October 2024 (the \u201cFPN\u201d). The FPN was issued because the Appellant had failed to comply in time with the terms of a compliance notice issued by the Regulator on…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7701],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7633,8024,7903,9281,7882],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-562723","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-compliance","kji_keyword-notice","kji_keyword-received","kji_keyword-regulator","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nHolyrood Dental Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator - 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\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Holyrood Dental Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. This appeal (or \u201creference\u201d adopting the statutory terminology) concerns a decision of The Pensions Regulator (the \u201cRegulator\u201d) to issue a fixed penalty notice of \u00a3400 to the Appellant on 15 October 2024 (the \u201cFPN\u201d). The FPN was issued because the Appellant had failed to comply in time with the terms of a compliance notice issued by the Regulator on...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/\" \/>\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=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"13 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/\",\"name\":\"Holyrood Dental Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T22:02:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Holyrood Dental Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"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\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/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\\\/zh-hans\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Holyrood Dental Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator - 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\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Holyrood Dental Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator","og_description":"1. This appeal (or \u201creference\u201d adopting the statutory terminology) concerns a decision of The Pensions Regulator (the \u201cRegulator\u201d) to issue a fixed penalty notice of \u00a3400 to the Appellant on 15 October 2024 (the \u201cFPN\u201d). The FPN was issued because the Appellant had failed to comply in time with the terms of a compliance notice issued by the Regulator on...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"13 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/","name":"Holyrood Dental Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T22:02:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/holyrood-dental-care-limited-v-the-pensions-regulator\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Holyrood Dental Care Limited v The Pensions Regulator"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","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\/zh-hans\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#\/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\/zh-hans\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/562723","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=562723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=562723"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=562723"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=562723"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=562723"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=562723"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=562723"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=562723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}