{"id":562845,"date":"2026-04-15T00:18:22","date_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:18:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/"},"modified":"2026-04-15T00:18:22","modified_gmt":"2026-04-14T22:18:22","slug":"pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/","title":{"rendered":"PM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Enfield dated 16 January 2025 under file reference SC242\/24\/06208 involves an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a complete rehearing. The new tribunal must considerand make relevant findings as to whether or not the claimant satisfied the criteria to be awarded the enhanced rate of the daily living component and\/or the mobility component of personal independence payment from and including 15 May 2024 to and including 14 May 2034. In so doing the new tribunal should in particular have regard to the claimant\u2019s grounds of appeal dated 21 May 2025 and the submissions of the Secretary of State dated 3 December 2025. This decision is made under section 12(2)(b)(i) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. REASONS 1. This is an appeal, with my permission, against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Enfield on 16 January 2025. 2. I shall refer to the appellant hereafter as \u201cthe claimant\u201d. The respondent is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I shall refer to him hereafter as \u201cthe Secretary of State\u201d. I shall refer to the tribunal which sat on 16 January 2025 as \u201cthe Tribunal\u201d and the tribunal to which I am remitting the matter as \u201cthe new tribunal\u201d. 3. The claimant appealed against the decision of 15 May 2024 that she was entitled to 8 points for the daily living component and 10 points for the mobility component of personal independence payment. She was therefore entitled to both components of personal independence payment at the standard rate from and including 15 May 2024 to and including 14 May 2034. The decision was subsequently reconsidered, but not revised, on 16 August 2024. She had previously been entitled to both components of personal independence payment at the standard rate from and including 8 December 2024 to and including 8 November 2023. 4. The matter came before the Tribunal on 16 January 2025 when the claimant did not appear, having elected for the matter to be decided on the papers, but the Tribunal considered that it was fair to proceed in her absence. The appeal was refused. 5. The Tribunal found that the claimant was entitled to 8 points for the daily living component and 10 points for the mobility component of personal independence payment. She was therefore entitled to both components of personal independence payment at the standard rate from and including 15 May 2024 to and including 14 May 2034. 6. On 20 October 2025 I acceded to the claimant\u2019s application and granted her permission to appeal. It seemed to me that there was an arguable case that the Tribunal had erred in law for the reasons set out in her grounds of appeal. 7. On 3 December 2025 the Secretary of State provided submissions and supported the appeal. 8. The claimant had nothing to add on 6 January 2026. 9. The Secretary of State confirmed that the claimant had not made any further claim for personal independence payment after the hearing on 16 January 2025. 10. Neither party has sought an oral hearing and I do not consider that it is necessary to hold one in order to resolve the matter. Both parties have also consented to a decision without reasons under rule 40(3) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008. 11. The Secretary of State submitted that \u201c4.2 It is my submission, that the FtT has erred in law in both their fact finding and duty to provide adequate reasons for their decision. The conclusions from the FtT on how they assessed the claimant\u2019s functional abilities appears limited in their reasoning. As noted above the claimant was awarded 8 points for daily living descriptors 1(b), 4(b), 5(b), and 6(b) and 10 points for mobility descriptor 2(d). It seems that what the FtT has provided at paragraphs 2 and 3 of the SOR with regards to the claimant\u2019s medical conditions and how that impacts of mobility activities appears to be no more than a rehearsal of part of the evidence and a conclusion without an adequate explanation. 4.3 The claimant has several health conditions for example, disc degeneration in her spine, osteoarthritis, pain in her lower neck, right side of neck, right arm, shoulder, hip and knee. She experiences anxiety and depression. She was advised to increase the dose of her antidepressants by her GP, but she declined as she did not feel that it was that effective. She also has COPD and Vasovagal episodes with blackouts and an autoimmune disorder. She takes co-codamol and paracetamol for pain relief. As well as, Amitriptyline, diazepam, propranolol, citalopram, omeprazole, fostair inhaler, salbutamol inhaler and anoro ellipta inhaler. 4.4 As noted in the PTA (permission to appeal) the FtT found that the claimant did not satisfy mobility activity 2 at the enhanced rate as they provided the following reasons detailed at paragraphs 2-3 of the SOR which states: \u201c2. [Claimant] who is 61 years of age at the date of decision has a number of health conditions: -Disc degeneration in her spine she had pain management input and completed a pain management program in 2019. She has been prescribed various medications. She consulted her GP. In May 2024 which was after the date of decision about increased pain in her neck and was prescribed some standard physio exercises with no follow up. There was also reference at that consultation to a problem with her knee locking which appears to be a new problem. At the date of decision there had been no investigation or diagnosis made in relation to it. The tribunal cannot take into account any condition or deterioration that arose after the date of decision ie 15\/5\/2024. It is accepted that there may have been a delay between symptoms arising and consulting the GP, however at the date of decision there was no evidence that these knee symptoms were likely to persist for the required period for more than 50% of the time. Should this prove to be an ongoing a limiting factor then [claimant] should apply for a review of her award. \u201c\u20263. The tribunal considered the disputed descriptors taking into account that a descriptor has to be performed safely reliably and within a reasonable time scale and likely to apply on more than 50% of the days. MOVING AROUND [Claimant] said in her review from that her walking distance is now under 20 metres whereas in her first application form she said it was 20 to 50 metres. Her Musculoskeletal problems appear stable although as stated above she was complaining after the date of the decision about her knee giving way, but there does not appear to be any investigation or diagnosis of this at the date of the decision. The tribunal cannot take into account any deterioration that may occur after the date of decision and also needs to be aware of the impact of any treatment that might mitigate any new symptoms. There were no examples given to the HCP of walking trips other than a recent one to the GP where she parked close by. When she saw the GP there is note that she walked [into] the consulting room normally, but was breathless. She reported to the HCP that she was, until a few weeks before driving her car, but had stopped on account of the dizziness she has been experiencing. This would have entailed a certain degree of walking at either end. She does not use any aids as she said that a walking stick isn\u2019t helpful, but the tribunal considered that a [rollator] should be considered, as this would give greater support. The breathlessness has [been] a greater problem when she had a chest infection over the winter but by March her breathlessness has improved and was Grade 2. The exacerbations do not amount to more than 50% of the time. The tribunal considered the impact of dizziness, but noted that [claimant] told the neurologist that this was normally in the early morning and lasted 10 minutes. More importantly it is highly likely that this will be resolved very quickly when she has the EPLY manoeuvre performed either by the ENT department or her GP. On the balance of probability the tribunal found that [claimant] could walk with an aid more than 20 metres. It was accepted that this may be less when she has a chest infection. At the date of decision she has been graded as 2 on the breathlessness score which is medically consistent with being able to walk 20 metres to 50 metres.\u201d 4.5 The FtT in their reasoning (repeated above) appear to have simply summarised the evidence before them and then concluded that at the date of the decision under appeal, the claimant did not satisfy the enhanced rate of mobility component providing inadequate reasoning to support and explain how they reached their conclusion that the claimant was able to move around in accordance with the provisions of Regulations 4(2A) of the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013 (the PIP Regs 2013). 4.6 Notably, the FtT heavily relied on evidence from the GP that stated that the claimant was observed walking into the GP \u201cconsulting room normally, but was breathless\u201d to make the case that the claimant can walk more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres (SOR, UT bundle, p.15). However, this leaves one to consider if it is normal for someone to be breathless when simply walking into a room? 4.7 Contradicting this evidence, the claimant states, \u201cI don\u2019t tend to go out often, it\u2019s too painful\u201d due to her mobility restrictions (Personal independence payment award review, FtT bundle, p.31). The claimant states that she is in constant pain from the first step she takes (Appeal a benefit decision, FtT bundle, p.4). Therefore, it is my submission that the FtT have erred in failing to adequately address the claimed pain, said to be a significant problem regarding walking.\u00a0It is unclear from the SOR if the claimant is still affected to some degree despite her pain relief? If so, I submit that the FtT should have explained further in light of the decision PS v SSWP [2016] UKUT 0326 (AAC) how it determined that the claimant was able to walk more than 20 metres but no less than 50 metres. 4.8 Moreover, the FtT are entitled to give weighting to whatever evidence that they choose however, where there is conflicting evidence, it must in the first instance explore and consider it in a holistic manner and provide sufficient reasons explaining why they preferred the evidence that they had. In this appeal the FtT does not appear to have done that. Consequently, the FtT have given inadequate reasons for their conclusion in their treatment of mobility activity 2 as well as their treatment of evidence. 4.9 Furthermore, the claimant stated after the date of decision that her knee gave way (SOR, UT bundle, p.15). However, the FtT have asserted that: \u201cThe tribunal cannot take into account any deterioration that may occur after the date of decision and also needs to be aware of the impact of any treatment that might mitigate any new symptoms\u201d (SOR, UT bundle, p.15). Although this may be correct, it could be argued that there is sufficient existing evidence to suggest that the FtT have made an error in law regarding the claimant\u2019s ability to walk more than 20 metres but no more than 50 metres within the requirements of regulation 4(2A) of The Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, specifically given the longstanding nature of the difficulties that appear to have been present prior to this, which could have led to this incident. 4.10 As it is outlined, she can walk for 5 minutes slowly with a stick but must rest to start walking again and she cannot maintain this as she is left exhausted (PA4 form, FtT, p. 56). Consequently, the claimant perhaps is unable to walk to an adequate standard. Therefore, the FtT have given inadequate reasons for their conclusion in their treatment of mobility activity 2. 4.11 In view of this, it is unclear how the FtT reached the conclusion that the claimant can mobilise. This I submit is an error in law. 4.12 In view of the above, I respectfully submit that the inadequacy of reasons makes it difficult for the claimant to know whether the FtT applied the correct legal tests in assessing the evidence, making its findings of fact, and arriving at its decision. Furthermore, the errors of law identified and detailed within this submission are material, as had the claimant been awarded at least 2 additional points for the mobility descriptors of PIP she would have scored sufficient points to be awarded the enhanced rate of the mobility component. 4.13 If the UT Judge accepts my submission that the FtT has erred in law, I invite them to set aside the FtT\u2019s decision and remit the appeal to be re-heard by a differently constituted FtT. I courteously submit that the further grounds raised by UT Judge detailed at point 11 of the grant of permission to appeal to the UT, will be subsumed by the newly constituted FtT.\u201d 12. For the reasons identified by the Secretary of State, I am satisfied that there was the Tribunal made errors of law which were material to the decision and for that reason the decision of the Tribunal should be set aside. 13. In the circumstances I do not need to consider whether the Tribunal made any other errors of law. 14. I am satisfied that the resolution of any other grounds of appeal will fall to be subsumed at the hearing before the new tribunal. 15. I therefore allow the appeal and set aside the decision of the Tribunal. I remit the matter to a new tribunal which should conduct a complete rehearing of the matter. 16. I must stress that the fact that this appeal to the Upper Tribunal has succeeded should not be taken as any indication as to the outcome of the rehearing by the new tribunal. It is quite possible that the new tribunal may end up effectively coming to the same decision as the previous Tribunal, namely that the claimant was entitled to both components of personal independence payment at the standard rate from and including from and including 15 May 2024 to and including 14 May 2034. 17. Alternatively, it is possible that the new tribunal might take a different view of the facts from that of the Tribunal and reach the conclusion that in fact the claimant was entitled to one or other or both components of personal independence payment at the enhanced rate from and including 15 May 2024 to and including 14 May 2034 18. It is for the new tribunal itself to decide which of these alternative options open to it applies, depending on the view it takes of the facts and providing it makes proper findings of fact and gives adequate reasons. It would not be appropriate for me to express any opinion either way on the merits of the appeal. 19. The following directions apply to the hearing before the new tribunal: (1) The new tribunal should not involve any member who was a member of the Tribunal involved in the hearing of the appeal. (2) The new tribunal must considerand make relevant findings as to whether or not the claimant satisfied the criteria to be awarded the enhanced rate of the daily living component and\/or the mobility component of personal independence payment from and including 15 May 2024 to and including 14 May 2034. In so doing the new tribunal should in particular have regard to the claimant\u2019s grounds of appeal dated 21 May 2025 and the submissions of the Secretary of State dated 3 December 2025. Mark West Judge of the Upper Tribunal Signed on the original on 11 March 2026<\/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":"

The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Enfield dated 16 January 2025 under file reference SC242\/24\/06208 involves an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a complete rehearing. The new tribunal must considerand make…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[9033],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[7610],"kji_subject":[7712],"kji_keyword":[7705,7643,9583,9584,7636],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-562845","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-upper-tribunal-administrative-appeals-chamber","kji_year-7610","kji_subject-social","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-claimant","kji_keyword-including","kji_keyword-mobility","kji_keyword-tribunal","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nPM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - 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\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"PM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Enfield dated 16 January 2025 under file reference SC242\/24\/06208 involves an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a complete rehearing. The new tribunal must considerand make...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/\" \/>\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\\\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\\\/\",\"name\":\"PM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-14T22:18:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\\\/#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\":\"PM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions\"}]},{\"@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":"PM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - 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\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"PM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions","og_description":"The decision of the First-tier Tribunal sitting at Enfield dated 16 January 2025 under file reference SC242\/24\/06208 involves an error on a point of law. The appeal against that decision is allowed and the decision of the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remitted to a differently constituted tribunal for a complete rehearing. The new tribunal must considerand make...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/","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\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/","name":"PM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-14T22:18:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/pm-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-work-and-pensions\/#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":"PM v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions"}]},{"@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\/562845","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=562845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=562845"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=562845"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=562845"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=562845"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=562845"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=562845"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=562845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}