{"id":582058,"date":"2026-04-17T01:20:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-16T23:20:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/"},"modified":"2026-04-17T01:20:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-16T23:20:08","slug":"thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/","title":{"rendered":"Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited (Consequentials hearing), Re"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"kji-decision\">\n<div class=\"kji-full-text\">\n<p>MR JUSTICE LEECH: RULING 1 1. This is the consequential hearing to follow my judgment which I\u00a0handed down this morning at 9.30 in relation to the restructuring plan for Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited. I\u00a0left open two questions on the form of the\u00a0order. The first relates to information rights and the second to the release issues. I\u00a0found in principle that the scope of the\u00a0information rights and the releases should not prevent the court from sanctioning the scheme, but I\u00a0have raised two further points in the judgment in relation to each of those particular issues. 2. In relation to the information rights I\u00a0considered that the Common Terms Agreement, Schedule\u00a04 did not provide full information for the Subordinated Creditor and the Class\u00a0B\u00a0AHG if they were not participating in the equity raise in the recapitalisation transaction: see paragraph\u00a059. 3. The Plan Company has put forward a\u00a0form of words to meet that which involves an\u00a0insertion of a\u00a0new paragraph\u00a059(d) in part 3 schedule\u00a03, which will provide as follows and I\u00a0quote: &quot;TWUL shall provide periodic updates on a\u00a0monthly basis to the advisers to the secured creditors and the subordinated creditors, subject to confidentiality arrangements which are satisfactory to TWL acting reasonably being in place as to the progress of such recapitalisation transaction, provided that nothing in this subparagraph (d) shall require TWL to disclose commercially sensitive information that in TWL&#039;s opinion acting reasonably could prejudice the equity raise process and\/or be in breach of its obligations under the\u00a0UK Market Abuse Regulation. 4. Mr\u00a0Thornton has confirmed this morning on behalf of TWL that this amendment to the plan is acceptable. Mr\u00a0Phillips on behalf of the Class\u00a0B\u00a0AHG has only just had an\u00a0opportunity to consider it and he asks for time to take instructions and if possible put forward an\u00a0amendment. He initially suggested that it should be by way of some sort of bilateral agreement between the parties. 5. In my judgment, it is appropriate to give the Class\u00a0B\u00a0AHG a\u00a0little time to consider this form of words. I\u00a0bear in mind that the form of words has been accepted by TWL, and also that the Class\u00a0B\u00a0AHG are all Secured Creditors and have existing rights under the relevant Finance Documents. Nevertheless I\u00a0will give the Class\u00a0B\u00a0AHG 48\u00a0hours to respond in writing and then I\u00a0will give 24\u00a0hours to the Plan Company and the Class\u00a0A\u00a0AHG to respond to their proposals. I\u00a0will then decide either at the end of this week\u00a0&#8212; I\u00a0will require that they be sent to me by 4.00\u00a0pm on Friday and I\u00a0will decide immediately what the form of the\u00a0order will be with a\u00a0view to it being sealed immediately. 6. In relation to the releases, the argument advanced by Mr\u00a0Day on behalf of Mr\u00a0Maynard was that if I\u00a0permitted the plan to take effect subject to the releases in clause 16.2, the Court would be allowing the Plan Company to give up a\u00a0substantial asset. As Mr\u00a0Day put it this morning, I\u00a0cannot be confident that there would be nothing for a\u00a0special administrator to investigate if at the end of the\u00a0day the Recapitalisation Plan fails, RP2 does not take effect and the Plan Company finally goes into a SAR either in September 2025 or towards the end of this year. 7. Mr\u00a0de\u00a0Mestre KC for the Plan Company points out that there are temporal and subject matter limits to the releases and that in their current form the releases do not exclude officeholders&#039; claims. He submits that if I\u00a0permit an\u00a0officeholder to retain the right to bring claims it would be used either in\u00a0terrorem against the directors and advisers of the company and it will be inconsistent with the rationale for including the releases in the first place. He refers me again to the decision of Mr\u00a0Justice\u00a0Miles in Matalan, which I\u00a0have quoted in the judgment. 8. With some hesitation I\u00a0prefer to leave the releases in their present form. It seems to me that the argument this morning has demonstrated the difficulty for the directors in continuing to carry through RP2 if they are subject to a\u00a0potential claim being made against it by a\u00a0special administrator down the line. The same is also true for their advisers and for Creditors more widely. 9. Further, this point was raised at the outset by the Class\u00a0B\u00a0AHG in the Class B Grounds of Opposition, it is a\u00a0point which they fully argued and it is a point which I\u00a0have decided that it should not prevent the scheme taking effect. In my judgment, it would be inconsistent with the rationale for granting the releases in the first place to now include a\u00a0form of words which allows a\u00a0special administrator to reopen the question of the directors&#039; conduct later, possibly much later, and after the Plan Company has either gone into or even come out of a SAR. Mr\u00a0Day made the very good point that I\u00a0cannot be satisfied that no breaches duty have been committed and I\u00a0have had to take a\u00a0fair amount on trust in relation to the conduct by the Plan Company&#039;s officers and their advisers (and not without some criticism in the judgment). But it seems to me that having taken a\u00a0decision in principle to sanction the plan, and to give the market an\u00a0opportunity to restore Thames Water to health, it would be inappropriate to tie one hand of the directors and their advisers behind their back while trying to give effect to that purpose. Having heard full argument this morning, it seems to me I\u00a0will approve the plan in its existing form and without any modification. RULING 2 10. I\u00a0have to decide next whether to grant permission to appeal and if so in what terms. I\u00a0indicated to the parties that I\u00a0would be prepared to grant permission to appeal but I\u00a0wanted to test the Grounds and the extent to which they had a\u00a0real prospect of success with each of the potential Appellants. Mr\u00a0Al Attar KC submitted, and I\u00a0accept in general terms, that if possible it is the duty of the first instance judge to try and case manage an\u00a0appeal and focus the minds of the\u00a0parties on the issues which the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal will have to decide. In the present case that particular duty is magnified, given the urgency of the potential appeal and the limited time which the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal will have both to hear and decide the issues and also to produce a\u00a0judgment. 11. With that in mind I\u00a0turn to each of the parties who presented applications for permission to appeal. In relation to TWL three targeted grounds are advanced, and although Mr\u00a0Al\u00a0Attar advanced a strong argument for suggesting that the appeal has no real prospect of success, I\u00a0am satisfied that I\u00a0should grant permission to appeal on those three grounds both because they are targeted and because it seems to me they do raise a\u00a0legal issue which the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal should determine, even if, as he submitted, it may have no effect on the outcome. I\u00a0cannot decide that issue at this hearing. 12. I\u00a0also give permission to appeal to Mr\u00a0Day on behalf of Mr\u00a0Maynard in relation to the four grounds that he advanced. I\u00a0have considered whether I\u00a0should limit him to Grounds 1 and 2. But, as Mr\u00a0Day submitted, Grounds 3 and 4 may give rise to issues of principle which the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal should be asked to consider. In my judgment, those Grounds are also limited and are capable of being dealt with by the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal on the basis of the judgment and limited references to the evidence and the submissions. 13. The more difficult question is how to deal with the five Grounds which the Class\u00a0B AHG advance. Mr\u00a0de\u00a0Mestre KC for the Plan Company submitted that Mr\u00a0Phillips was in effect applying for permission to appeal against [1] to [306] and there is an\u00a0element of truth in that. I\u00a0refuse permission in relation to the competition point. Although Ms\u00a0Thomas put up a\u00a0valiant display, demonstrating the lack of knowledge on the part of this particular tribunal of competition law, I am not satisfied that there is any real independent competition law argument which has a\u00a0real prospect of success in the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal. Moreover, the determination of the competition law will detract from the critical issues which the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal will have to decide in this case. In my judgment, therefore, Ms\u00a0Thomas will have to persuade the Court of Appeal to grant permission in relation to the competition law point. 14. In relation to the procedural fairness point, although Mr\u00a0Phillips made some good points, I\u00a0am not satisfied that there was any fundamental lack of fairness in the way that the Class B AHG was treated either at the trial or in my case management decision on the 31\u00a0January\u00a02025. One has to bear in mind consistently that these cases are not started by Part 7 Claim Forms with full pleadings, disclosure, expert evidence and a full trial timetable. These are, after all, applications in which the court is exercising a\u00a0very different kind of jurisdiction. It will be letting that jurisdiction get out of control if the parties were able to complain to the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal that they did not have time to advance their case in relation to the\u00a0sanction of a\u00a0plan under Part 26A after four\u00a0and\u00a0a\u00a0half days (very long days, I\u00a0may say) of evidence and argument with the benefit of numerous counsel and solicitor teams to demonstrate that there could be some substantial procedural fairness in the way in which the Court\u00a0dealt with the trial. I\u00a0therefore dismiss the procedural fairness ground. 15. I\u00a0will, however, permit the Class\u00a0A\u00a0AHG to appeal on Grounds 1, 2 and 4 which go to the heart of the\u00a0decision that I\u00a0made. Ground 2 raises the same or substantially the same ground as the TWL grounds of appeal and Ground 4 raises a discrete point on releases which it seems to me is the point of law for the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal. The one Ground which gives me some concern is Ground 1, which deals with the valuation evidence. I\u00a0am not satisfied that there is any real prospect of success in relation to the valuation evidence but nevertheless I\u00a0will give permission to appeal on the basis that there is some other compelling reason for doing so. 16. There are two compelling reasons. The first is that my judgment was largely built on the conclusions on valuation which I reached and the Class\u00a0B\u00a0AHG ought to be given an\u00a0opportunity to challenge that at the same time as challenging the legal reasoning in the judgment. But secondly, and more importantly, the press and public interest in this case makes it important that the Court\u00a0of\u00a0Appeal should at least have an\u00a0opportunity to scrutinise the decision and the exercise of my discretion. For that reason, if none other, it should be important that the Class\u00a0B\u00a0AHG have an\u00a0opportunity to run a\u00a0considered appeal against the valuation findings and the conclusions which flow from them. For those reasons I\u00a0will permit the Class\u00a0B\u00a0AHG to appeal on grounds 1, 2 and 4. 17. I\u00a0make it clear that I\u00a0am not limiting any of the parties to the draft Grounds which are in their Skeleton Arguments and that they will have until 4.00\u00a0pm on Thursday to file Grounds of Appeal and that in doing so I\u00a0do not treat their Skeleton Arguments as a\u00a0statute which limits the extent to which they can appeal but more an\u00a0indication of the areas to which the Grounds of Appeal must be focused. Epiq Europe Ltd hereby certify that the above is an accurate and complete record of the proceedings or part thereof. Lower Ground, 18-22 Furnival Street, London EC4A 1JS Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Email: civil@epiqglobal.co.uk<\/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\/ch\/2025\/369\" 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 LEECH: RULING 1 1. This is the consequential hearing to follow my judgment which I handed down this morning at 9.30 in relation to the restructuring plan for Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited. I left open two questions on the form of the order. The first relates to information rights and the second to the release issues. I&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7624],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[8463],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,12876,7698,8358,9159],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-582058","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-high-court-insolvency-and-companies-list","kji_year-8463","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-class","kji_keyword-grounds","kji_keyword-judgment","kji_keyword-relation","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>Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited (Consequentials hearing), Re - 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\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited (Consequentials hearing), Re\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"MR JUSTICE LEECH: RULING 1 1. This is the consequential hearing to follow my judgment which I handed down this morning at 9.30 in relation to the restructuring plan for Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited. I left open two questions on the form of the order. The first relates to information rights and the second to the release issues. I...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/\" \/>\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=\"10 \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\\\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\\\/\",\"name\":\"Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited (Consequentials hearing), Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-16T23:20:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\\\/#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\":\"Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited (Consequentials hearing), Re\"}]},{\"@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":"Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited (Consequentials hearing), Re - 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\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited (Consequentials hearing), Re","og_description":"MR JUSTICE LEECH: RULING 1 1. This is the consequential hearing to follow my judgment which I handed down this morning at 9.30 in relation to the restructuring plan for Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited. I left open two questions on the form of the order. The first relates to information rights and the second to the release issues. I...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/","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":"10 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/","name":"Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited (Consequentials hearing), Re - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-16T23:20:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/thames-water-utilities-holdings-limited-consequentials-hearing-re\/#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":"Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited (Consequentials hearing), Re"}]},{"@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\/582058","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=582058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=582058"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=582058"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=582058"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=582058"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=582058"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=582058"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=582058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}