{"id":14203,"date":"2023-07-09T15:12:34","date_gmt":"2023-07-09T15:12:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?p=14203"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:45:36","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T14:45:36","slug":"case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1","title":{"rendered":"Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-legal-principles-and-key-points\"><strong>Legal Principles and Key Points:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In the case of Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1, it was held that where the tenants had a right of way over half of the paths, they could use the other half despite this being a technical breach as it constituted an implied easement. <em>Wheeldon v Burrows [1879]<\/em> was distinguished from due to there not being common occupation at the time of conveyance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Freehold owners entered into an agreement with the builders\u2019 firm who erected a road of houses on the same estate<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>2 houses shared a path to access their gardens<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Upon conveyance, the tenants had not expressed a right of way to be included<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Freehold owners later brought a claim, seeking entitlement to the right of way on the path<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues in Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Was there an implied easement right of way here to the use of the path?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Held by the Court of Appeal<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Appeal dismissed \u2013 there was an implied easement.<\/p><div id=\"caree-4288734202\" class=\"caree-within-the-content caree-entity-placement\" style=\"margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto;text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png\" alt=\"\"  srcset=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png 448w, https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1-300x250.png 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 448px) 100vw, 448px\" width=\"448\" height=\"373\"  style=\"display: inline-block;\" \/><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Lord Justice Chadwick<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Wheeldon v Burrows does not apply as such rule \u201ccan have no application to a conveyance executed to give effect to the obligation imposed by section 8(1) of the 1967 Act. \u2026 the principle is based on the proposition that a man does not intend to derogate from his grant\u201d [36]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The land and retained land must have been in common ownership [43]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Therefore s62 of the Law of Property Act 1925 applies, Wheeldon v Burrows seemed to be \u201can unnecessary and artificial construct\u201d to use for Chadwick LJ [45]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Citing Wilberforce L in the <em>Sovmots<\/em> appeal [1979], Chadwick LJ determined there would be \u201cno sensible concept of rights over one part of land for the benefit of another part while the two parts are in common ownership and occupation\u201d. However in the context of separation, there is no difficulty. \u201cThere may well be rights over the untenanted part of the land for the benefit of the tenanted part. If there are, those rights are within the wide compass of section 62 of the 1925 Act.\u201d [46]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cthis case demonstrates how important it is for any conveyancer concerned with enfranchisement to consider carefully the rights and obligations to be contained in the conveyance executed to give effect to the tenant&#8217;s right to enfranchise; and to ensure that the correct rights are both granted and reserved\u201d [78]<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Editorial comment<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>This precedent was not followed in the case of <em>Wood v Waddington [2014] EWHC 1358.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Principles and Key Points: Facts of Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1 Issues in Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1 Held by the Court of Appeal Appeal dismissed \u2013 there was an implied easement. Lord Justice Chadwick Wheeldon v Burrows does not apply as such rule \u201ccan have no application to a conveyance executed [&hellip;]<\/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-14203","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 v27.8) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1 | Careerinlaw.net | UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In the case of Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1, it was held that where the tenants had a right of way over half of the paths, they could use the other half despite this being a technical breach as it constituted an implied easement. Wheeldon v Burrows [1879] was distinguished from due to there not being common occupation at the time of conveyance.\" \/>\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-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the case of Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1, it was held that where the tenants had a right of way over half of the paths, they could use the other half despite this being a technical breach as it constituted an implied easement. Wheeldon v Burrows [1879] was distinguished from due to there not being common occupation at the time of conveyance.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-09T15:12:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-23T14:45:36+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=\"2 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-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\"},\"headline\":\"Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-09T15:12:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:45:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1\"},\"wordCount\":403,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#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-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1\",\"name\":\"Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1 | Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-09T15:12:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:45:36+00:00\",\"description\":\"In the case of Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1, it was held that where the tenants had a right of way over half of the paths, they could use the other half despite this being a technical breach as it constituted an implied easement. Wheeldon v Burrows [1879] was distinguished from due to there not being common occupation at the time of conveyance.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#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-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1\"}]},{\"@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: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"In the case of Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1, it was held that where the tenants had a right of way over half of the paths, they could use the other half despite this being a technical breach as it constituted an implied easement. Wheeldon v Burrows [1879] was distinguished from due to there not being common occupation at the time of conveyance.","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-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1","og_description":"In the case of Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1, it was held that where the tenants had a right of way over half of the paths, they could use the other half despite this being a technical breach as it constituted an implied easement. Wheeldon v Burrows [1879] was distinguished from due to there not being common occupation at the time of conveyance.","og_url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1","og_site_name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","article_published_time":"2023-07-09T15:12:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-23T14:45:36+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":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1"},"author":{"name":"Boris Ignachkov","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa"},"headline":"Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1","datePublished":"2023-07-09T15:12:34+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:45:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1"},"wordCount":403,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#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-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1","name":"Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","datePublished":"2023-07-09T15:12:34+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:45:36+00:00","description":"In the case of Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1, it was held that where the tenants had a right of way over half of the paths, they could use the other half despite this being a technical breach as it constituted an implied easement. Wheeldon v Burrows [1879] was distinguished from due to there not being common occupation at the time of conveyance.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#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-kent-v-kavanagh-2007-ch-1#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Summary: Kent v Kavanagh [2007] Ch 1"}]},{"@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\/14203","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=14203"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14203\/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=14203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}