{"id":651915,"date":"2026-04-22T22:01:08","date_gmt":"2026-04-22T20:01:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/"},"modified":"2026-04-22T22:01:08","modified_gmt":"2026-04-22T20:01:08","slug":"r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/","title":{"rendered":"R Thorpe v Sainsbury’s Supermarket Limited"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE The claimant\/appellant made claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising out of her dismissal on 7\/6\/19 by an ET1 form presented on 20\/8\/19 but the ET1 did not include an ACAS certificate number and that omission was not remedied until 11\/11\/19. She applied for extensions of time to bring the claims. Taking account of her written and oral evidence, medical reports and the fact that she had been able to engage with her employers and put in the ET1 in the period after June 2019 the EJ decided that no extension of time should be granted in respect of either type of claim. The EAT dismissed her appeal against that decision as there was no basis for saying that it was perverse. A factual error in the judgment as to the dates of a hospitalisation was immaterial to the decision and did not make it perverse. HIS HONOUR JUDGE MURRAY SHANKS: Introduction 1. This is an appeal against\u00a0a\u00a0judgment of Employment Judge TR Smith sitting in the Croydon Employment Tribunal, which was sent out on 26\u00a0September 2020, whereby he found that the claimant\u2019s claims against her former employer, Sainsbury\u2019s, were out of time and refused to extend that time. 2. That decision followed\u00a0a\u00a0hearing which took place on 23\u00a0September 2020\u00a0at which the claimant, Ms\u00a0Thorpe, was present and gave evidence and at which the judge had\u00a0a\u00a0bundle of documents running to 125\u00a0pages. 3. The appeal against his decision was allowed to proceed with some hesitation by Judge Auerbach in the Employment Appeal Tribunal after\u00a0a\u00a0rule 3(10) hearing on 26\u00a0January 2022. In accordance with the normal practice, only Ms\u00a0Thorpe attended that hearing. She was represented by an ELAAS representative called James Stewart, who placed an amended ground of appeal before Judge Auerbach, which was the sole ground on which the appeal was allowed to proceed. In short, it is said that the Employment Judge\u2019s decisions were perverse. 4. The appellant, Ms\u00a0Thorpe, has represented herself today, ably; Mr\u00a0Gordon of counsel has represented Sainsbury\u2019s. The Facts 5. The claimant was employed by Sainsbury\u2019s in Croydon from 10\u00a0October 2016. Unfortunately, she suffered domestic abuse from her partner. In January 2019\u00a0she was able to obtain alternative accommodation in [redacted], but she could not move for\u00a0a\u00a0period and she stayed with her parents in Croydon. However, she was not able to work during this period: she was suffering mental health issues and she had three children to look after. On 7\u00a0June 2019, Sainsbury\u2019s notified her that she had been dismissed. That date was the \u201ceffective date of termination\u201d. 6. Ms\u00a0Thorpe, perhaps with justification, regarded her treatment by Sainsbury\u2019s as unfair and she presented\u00a0a\u00a0claim to the employment tribunal by filling in\u00a0a\u00a0standard ET1\u00a0claim form on 20\u00a0August 2019. She alleged in that claim that she had been unfairly dismissed; that she had not been paid holiday pay and that she had been subject to various forms of discrimination, including age, race, disability, pregnancy or maternity, sex and religion. 7. The form that was sent in is at pages 26\u00a0onwards in my bundle today. On page 2\u00a0of the form (page 27\u00a0of my bundle) there is\u00a0a\u00a0question relating to ACAS. First of all, it says, \u201cDo you have an ACAS early conciliation certificate number?\u201d to which Ms\u00a0Thorpe rightly answered \u201cNo.\u201d There is then\u00a0a\u00a0question, \u201cIf no, why don\u2019t you have this number?\u201d, and she ticked\u00a0a\u00a0box that I am afraid was not right, which says, \u201cMy claim consists only of\u00a0a\u00a0complaint of unfair dismissal which contains an application for interim relief.\u201d Then there is\u00a0a\u00a0bracketed section which says, \u201cSee guidance\u201d. In fact, of course, her claim consisted of much more than claims for unfair dismissal and her unfair dismissal did not contain an application for interim relief. 8. Before the employment judge, Ms\u00a0Thorpe contended that she read the relevant guidance on the Government website but had not understood the guidance about the need for an ACAS certificate. 9. Given that the EDT was 7\u00a0June 2019, time for bringing\u00a0a\u00a0claim expired on 6\u00a0September 2019. On 19\u00a0September 2019\u00a0the employment tribunal wrote to Ms\u00a0Thorpe an email which is at page 80\u00a0in my bundle which said: \u201cGood afternoon, Miss Thorpe, We are in the process of vetting your ET1\u00a0claim form. You have not attached your ACAS certificate or advised us of its unique number or given\u00a0a\u00a0reason why you are exempt from providing this. Please can you provide this information as soon as possible so that we may continue processing your claim. Please reply by 30th September.\u201d 10. Ms\u00a0Thorpe responded to that by sending the employment tribunal\u00a0a\u00a0completely irrelevant number that related to her application to be relieved of the requirement to pay fees. In fact, that response document I do not think was before the employment judge, but it is in\u00a0a\u00a0supplementary bundle that she has put before the EAT. But in any event, it is clear that she did not respond with an ACAS certificate or explain why she was exempt from providing an ACAS certificate. 11. She then received shortly after 28\u00a0October 2019,\u00a0a\u00a0standard form letter from the employment tribunal which told her (page 82\u00a0in my bundle) that the claim had been referred to an employment judge and rejected and that the reason it had been rejected was because she had not been through the early conciliation procedure with ACAS and there was therefore no relevant number on the ET1\u00a0form. 12. She acted quickly in response to that document, notified ACAS of the dispute and\u00a0a\u00a0certificate was issued and provided to the employment tribunal on 11\u00a0November 2019. So only at that stage was her claim properly made. I am not entirely clear whether there was\u00a0a\u00a0new claim form, or it was simply accepted as an amendment, but it does not matter: it is only at that stage that the claim was properly made and it was two months out of time and an extension was therefore required. 13. In relation to the unfair dismissal and the wages claims, the employment judge had to decide whether it was reasonably practicable to have presented the claim in time and whether it was presented\u00a0a\u00a0reasonable time thereafter. In relation to the discrimination claims, the issue was slightly different. It was whether it was just and equitable to extend time to 11\u00a0November 2019, the onus being on Ms\u00a0Thorpe to show that it was just and equitable. 14. The case essentially turned on whether Ms\u00a0Thorpe\u2019s state of mental health was such that she could or could not have been expected to understand that she needed to obtain an ACAS number before presenting the ET1. The employment judge had before him in considering that issue evidence from the claimant herself in the form of an email, which is at pages 70\u00a0through to 77\u00a0of my bundle, and he also had oral evidence from her. In the statement, she said that she had been told about her dismissal by email on 7\u00a0June 2019\u00a0and then she said: \u201cThis news came at\u00a0a\u00a0time when I was just getting used to taking my new medication for my acute adjustment disorder and acute and transient psychotic disorder. It was\u00a0a\u00a0big blow to my mental health. I felt weak, confused and agitated and my confidence was just knocked back. It was only 4 days into my new medication and I was not given no chance for it to start working with this shocking news of dismissal.\u201d Then she said\u00a0a\u00a0bit later on: \u201cI had no other recourse after months of agonising communication with Sainsbury\u2019s I had no other option but to apply to the Tribunal for redress with the help of the family I managed to get the paperwork together despite the way I was feeling, I had to push on through my anxiety from preparing the Tribunal paperwork. It was draining on my mental health, but I knew I had to press on for the sake of myself and my 3 children.\u201d At page 72, dealing more specifically with the effect of her mental health issues, she said: \u201cI then had to work within\u00a0a\u00a0timeframe to try and appeal my dismissal and pay with HR suffering from anxiety, stress, depression, acute and transient psychotic disorder and other mental health conditions.\u201d Then she made\u00a0a\u00a0point at the bottom of page 72: \u201cMy claim was not rejected because of my unfair dismal [she says] (\u2026) claim or being out of time, it was rejected because I needed an ACAS certificate.\u201d 15. At page 74\u00a0she says that she did not know the type of mental health she was suffering until she was assessed by the Maudsley on 3\u00a0June 2019 as suffering from acute and transient psychotic disorder. She said that in December 2018\u00a0she had\u00a0a\u00a0disability due to domestic violence, PTSD, stress, depression, insomnia, anxiety and other health conditions. So, she had put her position before the judge. 16. The judge also had before him\u00a0a\u00a0medical report, which we have established was in fact dated 14\u00a0August 2019, which was prepared by the doctors in London for the transfer to [redacted] . At page 123\u00a0in my bundle, it said this: \u201cIn summary, Ms\u00a0Thorpe was found by the consultant psychiatrist on 03.06.19, to have adjustment disorder (\u2026) To date, Ms Thorpe has undergone very high levels of social stressors, following domestic violence for which she has now been moved to [redacted] (\u2026) This stress appears to have\u00a0a\u00a0negative impact on her mental wellbeing, in particular in terms of symptoms of anxiety and latterly psychotic symptoms. Risk to self and others appear low. However, on-going child safeguarding is concerns – children remain under child protection.\u201d This is the important bit: \u201cWhilst she has been under the care of assessment and Liaison Service, there appears to have been significant improvements in Ms\u00a0Thorpe\u2019s mental state, both objectively and subjectively, and she feels that the olanzapine has been much benefit to her. However, it is still early days in this regard and she will require\u00a0a\u00a0period of monitoring and on-going stabilisation.\u201d It is fair to say the judge did not refer specifically to that passage. There was, however, another report prepared in November 2019\u00a0which said this: \u201cIn June 2019\u00a0she had\u00a0a\u00a0telephone consultation with\u00a0a\u00a0psychiatrist from the Maudsley Hospital and was prescribed olanzapine 2.5\u00a0mg daily which was further increased to 5\u00a0mg daily. She also relocated to [redacted]. Since then, her sleep improved, appetite improved, anxiety decreased, and she is managing well with her day-to-day activities. She is planning to work in the future and is optimistic.\u201d Then it says\u00a0a\u00a0bit further down: \u201cThere is no evidence of any abnormal thought processes or abnormality of perception. She is insightful.\u201d Then at the bottom of page 103: \u201cRuth possibly experienced an acute psychotic episode triggered by\u00a0a\u00a0stressful life circumstances (\u2026) She has improved and is currently stable in her mental state.\u201d 17. There was also, very unusually, before the employment judge\u00a0a\u00a0document that Ms\u00a0Thorpe herself had prepared for her doctor in June 2020, so\u00a0a\u00a0year later than the relevant events, which is at page 117, and she said this: \u201c3rd June 2019 I was reassessed by mental hospital because I had unknown relapse in my mental health which brought on acute and transient psychotic disorder. (\u2026) I was placed on Olanzapine low dose 5mg for 6 months. This helped my mental health which I have been suffering from since May 2017\u00a0to present. It helped me to focus and bring an Employment Tribunal case against Sainsbury\u2019s for wrongful and unfair dismissal and discrimination. Even though I suffer from mental health, I felt the need to push on for justice, for wrongful and unfair dismissal with the help of family.\u201d 18. The judge also took account of the fact that between June 2019\u00a0and August 2019, Ms\u00a0Thorpe engaged with her employer about her dismissal and wages and that she was able to present the ET1\u00a0form, albeit without the necessary ACAS number and certificate. He also mentioned that she had assistance from her family. 19. On that basis he decided that she had not discharged the burden of showing that it was not reasonably practicable for her to bring her claim in time. He also decided that the further delay between 19\u00a0September 2019\u00a0when she was told about the lack of an ACAS number up to the date that she obtained an ACAS certificate, was not reasonable and so he would not have extended time in any event for the unfair dismissal and wages claims. He also decided it was not just and equitable to extend time for the discrimination claims and that was fundamentally for the same reason expressed at paragraph 66\u00a0where he said this: \u201cThe Claimant contended it was her mental health that inhibited her obtaining an ACAS early conciliation certificate. However, the medical evidence does not support that conclusion. Whilst the Claimant was in\u00a0a\u00a0particularly difficult position up until June 2019, thereafter there was considerable improvement. She started to function well. She engaged with the Respondents as to her dispute. She was able to fill in\u00a0a\u00a0Tribunal claim. The Tribunal has looked at the Claimant\u2019s medical condition and other challenges in the round and had regard to the fact that whilst those conditions may not have been\u00a0a\u00a0total impediment, were they such that they still impeded the Claimant correctly completing\u00a0a\u00a0claim form? On the basis of the evidence before it the Tribunal found that was not the case here.\u201d The appeal 20. The appellant says on this appeal that those decisions were perverse because the judge had not taken proper account of evidence, including the medical evidence. On the face of it, given the evidence he did have, which I have outlined, I would consider that that was really\u00a0a\u00a0hopeless submission. To show that\u00a0a\u00a0decision is perverse is very difficult and there was clearly evidence that the judge could rely on in support of the decision he made. 21. But today the appellant has pointed out, correctly, that there is an error in the judgment which she says is of significance. At paragraph 33\u00a0the judge said this: \u201cIn April 2019\u00a0her health was such that she required the intervention of mental health services and was hospitalised between the 14\u00a0to the 17\u00a0of April 2019. 34. She was prescribed new medication on 21\u00a0May 2019\u00a0and adjusted in June which the Tribunal found, and the Claimant accepted, led to\u00a0a\u00a0marked improvement in her condition (\u2026).\u201d Then the judge refers to the handwritten document that she prepared which I have already mentioned. 22. In fact, it is clear from the documents and should have been clear to the judge, that the hospitalisation referred to in paragraph 33\u00a0did not take place until April 2020, not 2019. Nor was she prescribed new medication on 21\u00a0May 2019. What in fact happened was that on 3 June 2019 she was prescribed 2.5\u00a0mg of Olanzapine which was increased to 5\u00a0mg within two weeks. She had not been hospitalised before that. It was only after the medication was removed in January 2020\u00a0that she ended up in hospital and subsequently with\u00a0a\u00a0higher dose. 23. The claimant says that this was important because the employment judge did not have\u00a0a\u00a0proper picture of the progress of her mental health difficulties and, in particular, of the need for stabilisation. I accept that there was an error, and it was an unfortunate error, made by the employment judge, but I do not consider that it was of any materiality to his decision. The crucial period that he was concerned with was June 2019\u00a0to November 2019, the period when the claimant was under an obligation to put in her Tribunal claim because the date of dismissal was 7\u00a0June 2019. 24. The employment judge had reports and he had the claimant\u2019s own record as to her state during that period. He was able to take account of all the material, including things that the claimant was definitely capable of, like filling in the ET1, when he reached his view. As Mr\u00a0Gordon pointed out, his misapprehension on the point about her being in hospital before June 2019, may actually have favoured her in\u00a0a\u00a0sense, because it would have indicated that things were more serious in June 2019\u00a0than perhaps, they were. Disposal 25. In any event, that does not matter. I am clear that this error does not mean that the judge\u2019s decisions were perverse. I understand how difficult and exasperating the whole process is, particularly for litigants in person, and how unfair it can seem at times. But I am afraid the rule about the ACAS conciliation and the rule about time limits for bringing claims are very strictly enforced and that Ms\u00a0Thorpe has indeed fallen foul of them. 26. I know it has also taken an inordinate amount of time to get this far for her to have\u00a0a\u00a0hearing with me of the appeal, but I am afraid I must apply the law, however sympathetic I feel towards her. So the appeal is accordingly dismissed.<\/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":"

SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE The claimant\/appellant made claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising out of her dismissal on 7\/6\/19 by an ET1 form presented on 20\/8\/19 but the ET1 did not include an ACAS certificate number and that omission was not remedied until 11\/11\/19. She applied for extensions of time to bring the claims. Taking account of her written…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8355],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7712],"kji_keyword":[7623,8454,7621,8059,32606],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-651915","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-employment-appeal-tribunal","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-social","kji_keyword-claim","kji_keyword-employment","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-mental","kji_keyword-thorpe","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR Thorpe v Sainsbury's Supermarket Limited - 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\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R Thorpe v Sainsbury's Supermarket Limited\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE The claimant\/appellant made claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising out of her dismissal on 7\/6\/19 by an ET1 form presented on 20\/8\/19 but the ET1 did not include an ACAS certificate number and that omission was not remedied until 11\/11\/19. She applied for extensions of time to bring the claims. Taking account of her written...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/\" \/>\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=\"14 \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\\\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\\\/\",\"name\":\"R Thorpe v Sainsbury's Supermarket Limited - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-22T20:01:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\\\/#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\":\"R Thorpe v Sainsbury’s Supermarket Limited\"}]},{\"@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":"R Thorpe v Sainsbury's Supermarket Limited - 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\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"R Thorpe v Sainsbury's Supermarket Limited","og_description":"SUMMARY PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE The claimant\/appellant made claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination arising out of her dismissal on 7\/6\/19 by an ET1 form presented on 20\/8\/19 but the ET1 did not include an ACAS certificate number and that omission was not remedied until 11\/11\/19. She applied for extensions of time to bring the claims. Taking account of her written...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/","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":"14 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/","name":"R Thorpe v Sainsbury's Supermarket Limited - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-22T20:01:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/r-thorpe-v-sainsburys-supermarket-limited\/#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":"R Thorpe v Sainsbury’s Supermarket Limited"}]},{"@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\/651915","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=651915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=651915"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=651915"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=651915"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=651915"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=651915"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=651915"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=651915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}