{"id":14507,"date":"2023-07-11T22:53:51","date_gmt":"2023-07-11T22:53:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?p=14507"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:46:54","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T14:46:54","slug":"case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38","title":{"rendered":"Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38"},"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 Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 it was held that (the rule against perpetuities not applying to the trust for the upkeep of the tablet and the window) the trust for the upkeep of the grave, the vault and the monuments was valid for twenty-one years from the testator\u2019s death.<\/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>By a will dated December 1927, Harry Dundee Hooper (the testator) appointed executors and trustees thereof.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Clause 8 provided \u201cI give and bequeath unto my trustees out of pure personalty the sum of one thousand pounds upon trust that they will invest the same and to in the intent that so far as they legally can do so and in any manner that they may in their discretion arrange they will out&nbsp; of annual income thereof provide for so long as may be practical for the care and upkeep of the grave and monument in the Torquay cemetery of my dear father and mother and of the vault and monument there in which lie the remains of my said dear wife and two daughters, also the grave and monument in Shotley churchyard near Ipswich where my gallant and only son lies buried and of the tablet in Saint Matthias\u2019 Church at Ilsham aforesaid to the memories of my said wife and children and the window in the same church to the memory of my late father. Provided always and I hereby expressly authorise and empower my said trustees that if at any time by capital payments out of such sum of one thousand pounds or investments representing the same, they can secure all or any of the objects aforesaid they shall be at liberty to do so. And in that event or any events as to the surplus (if any) of such sum and any accumulations of income I give and bequeath the same to the Vicar and Churchwardens of Saint Matthias\u2019 Church Ilsham aforesaid for such purposes and for such objects as they in their uncontrolled discretion may determine\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The testator died in October of 1929 and this summons, taken out in May 1930, on behalf of his executors and trustees, asked whether the bequest in clause 8 of the will of the sum of 1000l. to provide for the care and upkeep of the grave and monument and the vault and monument in Shotley Churchyard, and the tablet and window in Saint Matthias\u2019 Church at Ilsham was valid in whole or in part.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues in Re Hooper 1932 1 Ch 38e<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Was the trust for the upkeep valid ad infinitum or for a period of years.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Held by High Court<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The gift was valid for at least a period of 21 years from the testator\u2019s death, and that it was not charitable.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Maugham J<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>It was held that the rule against perpetuities did not apply as the tablet in St.Matthias\u2019 Church and the window in the same church were a good charitable gift.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Your own opinion about this case or something. Very short like a sentence or two.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u201cThe trustees here have the sum of 1000l. which they have to hold upon trust to &#8220;invest the same and to the intent that so far as they legally can do so and in any manner that they may in their discretion arrange they will out of the annual income thereof&#8221; do substantially four things: first, provide for the care and upkeep of the grave and monument in the Torquay cemetery; secondly, for the care and upkeep of a vault and monument there in which lie the remains of the testator&#8217;s wife and daughter; thirdly, for the care and upkeep of a grave and monument in Shotley churchyard near Ipswich, where the testator&#8217;s son lies buried; and, fourthly, for the care and upkeep of the tablet in Saint Matthias&#8217; Church at Ilsham to the memories of the testator&#8217;s wife and children and the window in the same church to the memory of his late father. All those four things have to be done expressly according to an arrangement made in the discretion of the trustees and so far as they legally can do so. I do not think that is distinguishable from the phrase &#8220;so long as the law for the time being permits,&#8221; and the conclusion at which I arrive, following the decision I have mentioned, is that this trust is valid for a period of twenty-one years from&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;the testator&#8217;s death so far as regards the three matters which involve the upkeep of graves or vaults or monuments in the churchyard or in the cemetery. As regards the tablet in St. Matthias&#8217; Church and the window in the same church there is no question but that that is a good charitable gift, and, therefore, the rule against perpetuities does not apply.\u201d p.41<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Principles and Key Points Facts of the Case Issues in Re Hooper 1932 1 Ch 38e Held by High Court Maugham J<\/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-14507","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 v27.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 | Careerinlaw.net | UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In the case of Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 it was held that (the rule against perpetuities not applying to the trust for the upkeep of the tablet and the window) the trust for the upkeep of the grave, the vault and the monuments was valid for twenty-one years from the testator\u2019s death.\" \/>\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-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the case of Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 it was held that (the rule against perpetuities not applying to the trust for the upkeep of the tablet and the window) the trust for the upkeep of the grave, the vault and the monuments was valid for twenty-one years from the testator\u2019s death.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-11T22:53:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-23T14:46:54+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=\"4 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-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\"},\"headline\":\"Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-11T22:53:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:46:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38\"},\"wordCount\":812,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#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-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38\",\"name\":\"Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 | Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-11T22:53:51+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:46:54+00:00\",\"description\":\"In the case of Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 it was held that (the rule against perpetuities not applying to the trust for the upkeep of the tablet and the window) the trust for the upkeep of the grave, the vault and the monuments was valid for twenty-one years from the testator\u2019s death.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#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-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38\"}]},{\"@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: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"In the case of Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 it was held that (the rule against perpetuities not applying to the trust for the upkeep of the tablet and the window) the trust for the upkeep of the grave, the vault and the monuments was valid for twenty-one years from the testator\u2019s death.","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-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38","og_description":"In the case of Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 it was held that (the rule against perpetuities not applying to the trust for the upkeep of the tablet and the window) the trust for the upkeep of the grave, the vault and the monuments was valid for twenty-one years from the testator\u2019s death.","og_url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38","og_site_name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","article_published_time":"2023-07-11T22:53:51+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-23T14:46:54+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38"},"author":{"name":"Boris Ignachkov","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa"},"headline":"Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38","datePublished":"2023-07-11T22:53:51+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:46:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38"},"wordCount":812,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#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-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38","name":"Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","datePublished":"2023-07-11T22:53:51+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:46:54+00:00","description":"In the case of Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38 it was held that (the rule against perpetuities not applying to the trust for the upkeep of the tablet and the window) the trust for the upkeep of the grave, the vault and the monuments was valid for twenty-one years from the testator\u2019s death.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#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-re-hopper-1932-1-ch-38#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Summary: Re Hopper 1932 1 Ch 38"}]},{"@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\/14507","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=14507"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14507\/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=14507"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14507"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14507"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}