{"id":659356,"date":"2026-04-23T13:15:49","date_gmt":"2026-04-23T11:15:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/"},"modified":"2026-04-23T13:15:49","modified_gmt":"2026-04-23T11:15:49","slug":"a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/","title":{"rendered":"A Shankar v Genpact (UK) Limited & Ors"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

SUMMARY Disability Discrimination & Jurisdictional \/ Time Points The EJ rejected the Claimant\u2019s application to amend to plead indirect discrimination on three grounds: Firstly, that the amendment was only put in many months after the application. Secondly, the Claimant was legally represented by\u00a0a\u00a0distinguished law firm between 23 December 2019 and 10 February 2022, which gave plenty of time for the amendment to be put in. Thirdly, the respondents would be prejudiced by the amendment. The appeal was dismissed as there was no error of law identified in this Decision. JOHN BOWERS KC,DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT Introduction 1. In this case Mr\u00a0Shankar represents himself and he has put in\u00a0a\u00a0very helpful skeleton argument running to\u00a017\u00a0pages. I gave him\u00a0a\u00a025\u00a0minute break during his oral presentation so that he could concentrate on the limited issues that are before me. The respondents to this appeal are not represented. In an email dated\u00a01\u00a0August\u00a02022\u00a0they indicated that they would not attend. Of course, I still have to find an error of law in the decision of EJ Glennie to allow this appeal. 2. The claim form was presented on\u00a022\u00a0November\u00a02019\u00a0and EJ Glennie accepted several amendments to it, but not indirect discrimination. The claimant brings claims of disability discrimination, section\u00a015, and failure to make reasonable adjustments, direct race discrimination, harassment related to race, victimisation, public interest disclosure, detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, section\u00a0103A Employment Rights Act, breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages and holiday pay. The claimant is sadly suffering from multiple medical conditions, as is clear. 3. The claim that is sought to be added by way of amendment is indirect discrimination, including (and I am summarising) requiring the claimant to work long and excessive hours in\u00a0a\u00a0pressurised work environment, requiring the claimant to work when he was suffering from disability related illness, assignment to\u00a0a\u00a0project which required the claimant to work in India but to follow India UK and Poland working hours, applying its standard appraisal criteria. 4. These factors are also raised under the heading section\u00a064D, which was allowed under failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to Equality Act section\u00a021. 5. The decision of EJ Glennie, reached after\u00a0a\u00a0preliminary hearing held on\u00a028\u00a0July\u00a02020\u00a0by phone, sets out\u00a0a\u00a0series of general factors relating to the amendment, and I quote paragraphs\u00a018\u00a0to\u00a020\u00a0as follows, and the then goes on to specifics: \u201c18. With regard to the timing and manner of the applications, I make the following findings. On the one hand, as I have already observed, the case is at an early stage procedurally in the Respondents have not yet presented a response. Conversely, nearly eight months passed from the date when the claim form was presented and production of the latest version of the Grounds of Complaint. During that time the Claimant advanced 4 amended versions of the claim.\u201d 6. I interpolate to say I think this is\u00a0a\u00a0very important feature. \u201c19. \u2026Although the Claimant was unrepresented at the outset, he was able to formulate and amend an extensive pleading in November\u00a02019. \u2026The only amendment proposed with input from legal advice was that of January. I accept that the Claimant\u2019s health is likely to have made it more difficult for him to work on his claim, but again this evidently did not inhibit him from drafting an amending substantial Grounds of Complaint in November\u00a02019\u00a0\u2026 20. It is also an unusual feature of the case that there have been 4 proposed amendments before the response has been presented.\u201d 7. Then at paragraph\u00a024.21\u00a0in relation to\u00a064C specifically, he says: \u201cAlthough the amendment is put in terms of reliance on facts already pleaded, to support an additional cause of action, there is no apparent reason why this could not have been proposed at an earlier stage, in particular when the Claimant was legally represented in January, or in February. There would be hardship to the Respondents in allowing the scope of the claim to be expanded in this way, while any hardship to the claimant is mitigated by the fact that he remains able to present his case about these matters in the way he formulated it originally and ( to the extent applicable) as allowed under paragraph\u00a064B.\u201d 8. So, the appeal was made against that and this came on the paper sift before HHJ Auerbach, who says in relation to this: \u201cThe judge\u2019s points are fairly made. He properly took the view that the additional cause of action of indirect discrimination would materially add to what the respondents had to defend and that this was not\u00a0a\u00a0mere relabelling. Permission to present the application to amend is not the same as permission to amend.\u201d 9. This matter was then taken before HHJ Tucker who made an order staying the appeal, but giving permission on this one ground, many others having been withdrawn. She asked the employment judge to answer three questions: (a) whether he considered the fact that the request to amend to include\u00a0a\u00a0claim of indirect disability discrimination was included within the solicitor\u2019s correspondence on behalf of the claimant in January\u00a02020; (b) whether he was aware that the claimant asserts those solicitors ceased to act for him by the time of the tribunal\u2019s response to that letter; and (c) if so, what the judge\u2019s reasons were for finding the permission to amend in respect of that claim would not be granted although no response has been lodged at the time the application to amend was raised and the claim relied on facts already pleaded. 10. It is very unfortunate that EJ Glennie did not in fact respond to those questions. Instead, he wrote (page\u00a0171) on\u00a05\u00a0July saying that his provisional view is that he should allow the amendment to include\u00a0a\u00a0complaint of indirect discrimination and that this would be consistent with his decision to allow the other amendments sought in January\u00a02020. He then asked for the observations of the parties. 11. The respondent represented by Deloitte Legal, wrote on\u00a07\u00a0July\u00a02022\u00a0objecting and pointing out that: \u201cWhilst the Claimant\u2019s solicitors suggested that\u00a0a\u00a0claim of indirect discrimination may be brought, no such claim was in fact brought on\u00a07\u00a0January\u00a02020 nor in\u00a0a\u00a0revised Grounds of Complaint filed by the Claimant in February\u00a02020. On\u00a010\u00a0February\u00a02020\u00a0EJ Glennie ordered the Claimant to file\u00a0a\u00a0new application to amend the claim no later than\u00a024\u00a0February\u00a02020\u00a0and to send in\u00a0a\u00a0single draft incorporating all amendments sought to date. The Grounds of Complaint as filed on\u00a024\u00a0February\u00a02020\u00a0in compliance with this order did not include\u00a0a\u00a0claim of indirect discrimination. This claim was introduced by way of further amendment in advance of the preliminary hearing on\u00a028\u00a0July 2020.\u201d 12. The matter then went back to EJ Glennie who wrote on\u00a027\u00a0July saying that he had decided to review his decision: \u201cAt that stage it appeared to me I might have inadvertently made inconsistent decisions regarding paragraph\u00a064B and\u00a064C, and I expressed the provisional view in favour of allowing the amendment after all. With the assistance of the parties\u2019 written submissions, I am satisfied that I intended to make different decisions regarding the two paragraphs and there is\u00a0a\u00a0distinction to be drawn between them. In the circumstances, and having regard to the importance of finality in justice, I have concluded I should not revisit the order or seek to re-exercise the discretion which I exercised in making the order in the first instance.\u201d 13. I have only jurisdiction to overturn the decision of EJ Glennie if I find an error of law. It is important to note that the letter from Irwin Mitchell in January did not include an indirect discrimination complaint. All it said was that \u201cwe wish to apply to plead claims of indirect disability discrimination\u201d, so that the reality is that the period to be looked at is from the entering of the original application,\u00a022\u00a0November\u00a02019, until\u00a017\u00a0July\u00a02020. 14. I take the relevant chronology from Mr\u00a0Shankar\u2019s helpful skeleton argument. He says on\u00a023\u00a0December he was able to get legal help from Irwin Mitchell. Louise Butt from that firm was on leave for two weeks from\u00a024\u00a0December\u00a02019. The tribunal granted an extension only until\u00a07\u00a0January\u00a02020\u00a0to send in his amended claims. Molly Patterson for Irwin Mitchell submitted the letter to provide\u00a0a\u00a0further extension of deadline to submit amended claim. Irwin Mitchell then requested the decision on the extension for the deadline to submit the claim. EJ Glennie responded to the request on\u00a010\u00a0February, but this was (as he puts it) \u201cthe last working day for Irwin Mitchell\u2019s engagement with the claimant\u2019s employment tribunal matter.\u201d 15. On\u00a010\u00a0February\u00a02020, EJ Glennie directed the claimant to send to the tribunal any application to amend by\u00a024\u00a0February. Considering the tribunal did not respond to the claimant\u2019s request for an extension, the claimant went ahead and submitted his amended claim on\u00a024\u00a0February\u00a02020. That included\u00a0a\u00a0request that he should be allowed to update his complaints after receiving legal guidance. 16. He did \u201cobtain legal guidance from\u00a0a\u00a0counsel in July\u00a02020\u201d. He described him as\u00a0a\u00a0senior counsel, and it was Anthony Korn of No.5\u00a0Chambers. Then on\u00a028\u00a0July\u00a02020, the claimant made the application, and he was represented by Mr\u00a0Wright of counsel to amend at\u00a0a\u00a0preliminary hearing before EJ Glennie. 17. It falls to me to decide only whether there was an error of law. The tribunal directed itself by reference to the leading case of Selkent Bus Company v Moore [1996] ICR\u00a0836. I have also been referred in the claimant\u2019s skeleton argument to Vaughan v Modality Partnership UKEAT\u00a00147\/20\/BA, which does not really go beyond the principles in Selkent. 18. It seems to me that there were grounds for the judge to decide as he did. They are really threefold. Firstly, that the amendment was only put in on\u00a017\u00a0July, although it had been mentioned that an application would be made before then. Secondly, he was legally represented by\u00a0a\u00a0distinguished law firm between\u00a023\u00a0December\u00a02019\u00a0and\u00a010\u00a0February\u00a02022, which gave plenty of time for the amendment to be put in. Thirdly, the respondents would be prejudiced by the amendment. It seems to me that there is no error of law in that, nor is the conclusion perverse so that the decision should stand. 19. It follows that I dismiss this appeal. I should say that the claimant raised several other issues in his submissions which do not fall within my jurisdiction and I have not dealt with them in this judgment.<\/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 Disability Discrimination & Jurisdictional \/ Time Points The EJ rejected the Claimant\u2019s application to amend to plead indirect discrimination on three grounds: Firstly, that the amendment was only put in many months after the application. Secondly, the Claimant was legally represented by a distinguished law firm between 23 December 2019 and 10 February 2022, which gave plenty of time…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8355],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[8027,7623,7643,13522,8246],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-659356","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-employment-appeal-tribunal","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-amendment","kji_keyword-claim","kji_keyword-claimant","kji_keyword-discrimination","kji_keyword-february","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nA Shankar v Genpact (UK) Limited & Ors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Shankar v Genpact (UK) Limited & Ors\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"SUMMARY Disability Discrimination & Jurisdictional \/ Time Points The EJ rejected the Claimant\u2019s application to amend to plead indirect discrimination on three grounds: Firstly, that the amendment was only put in many months after the application. Secondly, the Claimant was legally represented by a distinguished law firm between 23 December 2019 and 10 February 2022, which gave plenty of time...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"9 \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\\\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\\\/\",\"name\":\"A Shankar v Genpact (UK) Limited & Ors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-23T11:15:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/jurisprudences\\\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\\\/#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\":\"A Shankar v Genpact (UK) Limited & Ors\"}]},{\"@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":"A Shankar v Genpact (UK) Limited & Ors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Shankar v Genpact (UK) Limited & Ors","og_description":"SUMMARY Disability Discrimination & Jurisdictional \/ Time Points The EJ rejected the Claimant\u2019s application to amend to plead indirect discrimination on three grounds: Firstly, that the amendment was only put in many months after the application. Secondly, the Claimant was legally represented by a distinguished law firm between 23 December 2019 and 10 February 2022, which gave plenty of time...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/","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":"9 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/","name":"A Shankar v Genpact (UK) Limited & Ors - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-23T11:15:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/a-shankar-v-genpact-uk-limited-ors\/#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":"A Shankar v Genpact (UK) Limited & Ors"}]},{"@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\/659356","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=659356"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=659356"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=659356"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=659356"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=659356"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=659356"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=659356"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=659356"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}