{"id":13582,"date":"2023-07-04T00:48:31","date_gmt":"2023-07-04T00:48:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?p=13582"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:45:55","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T14:45:55","slug":"case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107","title":{"rendered":"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-legal-principles-and-points\"><strong>Legal principles and points:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In this case the Privy Council held that a right under estoppel was non-proprietary, and therefore did not bind third parties.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of the case:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>This Privy Council case concerned a situation in Fiji. In Fiji, s12 of the Native Land Trust Act states that the government\u2019s consent is required when \u2018dealing with\u2019 land owned by the government.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In the present case, the C had a sublease from the Fiji government with respect to a piece of land. C then built a house on that land, and assured D that she could live in the house permanently with her children.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In reliance on the assurance made to her regarding the house by C, D left her flat and moved into the house built by C with her children.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Some time later, following a breakdown in the relationship between C and D, C sought possession of the house from D.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>D refused, and argued that the doctrine of estoppel enabled her to remain at the property.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues in <em>Maharaj v Chand [1986]:<\/em><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The issue of course was whether C was estopped from requiring possession from D. This was contentious, because it was uncertain whether C could have granted the right in the house to D in the first place, as the land was owned by the Fiji government and as such the purported grant may have been unlawful and thus void under s12 of the Native Land Trust Act as the government\u2019s consent was not acquired over the grant.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>First instance court and the Fiji Court of Appeal:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>At first instance the court held that there was estoppel but, the Fiji Court of Appeal disagreed, and stated there was no estoppel, because it was unlawful for C to grant D a licence to occupy the land under s12 Native Land Trust Act.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Privy Council (PC) held:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The case went to the PC which held that C had indeed been estopped from seeking possession of the house.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Their reasoning was that the licence granted by C to D did not amount to \u2018dealing with the land\u2019, because estoppel is a personal right, and thus did not confer any proprietary rights to D. Therefore, it was not in contravention of the Act in question and the licence granted was lawful.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Sir Robin Cooke in the Privy Council:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>[446 H] \u201cAs has already been noted, it is a personal right not amounting to a property interest diminishing the rights of the plaintiff&#8217;s lessor and mortgagee. It has not been contended for the defendant that the plaintiff is under any obligation to her to continue to pay the rent or the mortgage interest, H The appeal raises no question regarding the plaintiff&#8217;s ability to assign the sublease. In any event that is subject to the control of the Native Land Trust Board under section 12.\u201d<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal principles and points: Facts of the case: Issues in Maharaj v Chand [1986]: First instance court and the Fiji Court of Appeal: Privy Council (PC) held: Sir Robin Cooke in the Privy Council:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":13103,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-13582","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-case-summaries","8":"entry"},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v24.4 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107 | Careerinlaw.net | UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In this case the Privy Council held that a right under estoppel was non-proprietary, and therefore did not bind third parties.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In this case the Privy Council held that a right under estoppel was non-proprietary, and therefore did not bind third parties.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-04T00:48:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-23T14:45:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\"},\"headline\":\"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-04T00:48:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:45:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107\"},\"wordCount\":482,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107\",\"name\":\"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107 | Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-04T00:48:31+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:45:55+00:00\",\"description\":\"In this case the Privy Council held that a right under estoppel was non-proprietary, and therefore did not bind third parties.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\",\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Boris Ignachkov\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/author\\\/boris\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"In this case the Privy Council held that a right under estoppel was non-proprietary, and therefore did not bind third parties.","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:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107","og_description":"In this case the Privy Council held that a right under estoppel was non-proprietary, and therefore did not bind third parties.","og_url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107","og_site_name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","article_published_time":"2023-07-04T00:48:31+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-23T14:45:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Boris Ignachkov","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Boris Ignachkov","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107"},"author":{"name":"Boris Ignachkov","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa"},"headline":"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107","datePublished":"2023-07-04T00:48:31+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:45:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107"},"wordCount":482,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107","name":"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","datePublished":"2023-07-04T00:48:31+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:45:55+00:00","description":"In this case the Privy Council held that a right under estoppel was non-proprietary, and therefore did not bind third parties.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-maharaj-v-chand-1986-3-all-er-107#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Summary: Maharaj v Chand [1986] 3 All ER 107"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Careerinlaw.net | UK"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa","name":"Boris Ignachkov","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Boris Ignachkov"},"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/author\/boris"}]}},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13582","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13582"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13582\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13103"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13582"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13582"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13582"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}