{"id":5661,"date":"2025-01-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-01-07T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/"},"modified":"2026-07-03T10:36:46","modified_gmt":"2026-07-03T10:36:46","slug":"the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/","title":{"rendered":"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282"},"content":{"rendered":"

Where a bank finances an international sale of goods, original bills of lading (\u201c<\/span>OBLs<\/span>\u201d) are amongst the documents that will be presented by a seller to the bank to obtain payment for the goods. The OBLs are held by the bank as security for the financing extended to the buyer. If the cargo is discharged by the carrier without presentation of the OBLs, the bank has a claim in misdelivery against the carrier.<\/span><\/p>\n

One of the defences raised against a misdelivery claim is that the bank would have consented to the cargo being discharged from the carrier without presentation of the OBLs in any event. As such, it is argued, the bank is not entitled to the damages sought as the carrier\u2019s breach of the contract of carriage did not cause the loss allegedly suffered by the bank. Such a defence was successfully established in <\/span>Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV<\/em> [2022] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 467, where the English High Court rejected the plaintiff bank\u2019s misdelivery claim. The decision was affirmed on appeal. <\/span>In the recent case of The Maersk Katalin<\/em> [2024] SGHC 282, the same defence was considered by the Singapore High Court, but the carrier in that case failed to succeed in this defence. Nevertheless, the case serves as a reminder that a bank\u2019s security over the cargo (by virtue of being holder of the OBLs) would be compromised if the carrier is able to prove that the bank would have counterfactually consented to the discharge of the cargo without presentation of the OBLs.[1]<\/sup><\/span>Background<\/span><\/strong>Winson Oil Trading Pte Ltd (\u201cWinson<\/b>\u201d) sold a shipment of cargo (the \u201cCargo<\/b>\u201d) on board the Maersk Princess (the \u201cVessel<\/b>\u201d) <\/span>to Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd (\u201cHLT<\/b>\u201d). Winson issued the owners of the Vessel, Maersk Tankers Singapore Pte Ltd (\u201cMaersk<\/b>\u201d), a Letter of Indemnity in relation to their instructions to discharge and deliver the Cargo to HLT without presentation of the OBLs.<\/p>\n

After the Cargo was received into its possession, HLT applied for a letter of credit (the \u201cLC<\/b>\u201d) with UOB to finance its purchase of the Cargo. The OBLs were pledged by HLT to UOB pursuant to a General Memorandum of Pledge of Goods, which accompanied the Letter of Offer under which the LC application was made. <\/span><\/p>\n

Having gone insolvent, HLT failed to fulfil its repayment obligations under the LC. UOB thus commenced a claim against Maersk for misdelivery of the Cargo, and Winson later intervened in the action. For convenience, Maersk and Winson will be collectively referred to as the \u201cDefendants\u201d. <\/span><\/p>\n

While Maersk admitted that the Cargo had been discharged and delivered to HLT without presentation of the OBLs, one of the main defences raised was that Maersk\u2019s breach of the contract of carriage did not cause UOB any loss, and\/or UOB would have suffered the same loss in any event (the \u201cCausation Defence<\/b>\u201d). In this regard, the Defendants asserted that even if Maersk did not breach the contract of carriage, UOB would have authorised the discharge of the Cargo to HLT without the presentation of the OBLs (the \u201cDefendants\u2019 Counterfactual Scenario<\/b>\u201d).[2]<\/sup><\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s decision<\/span><\/b><\/h3>\n

Justice S Mohan allowed UOB\u2019s misdelivery claim, dismissing all the defences raised by the Defendants. The salient points of the Judge\u2019s holdings in relation to the Causation Defence are summarised below.<\/p>\n

Leg<\/span><\/b>al Principles <\/span><\/b><\/span><\/b><\/h3>\n

It was uncontroversial that for UOB to succeed on its misdelivery claim, it had to prove that Maersk\u2019s breach of the contract of carriage was the dominant or effective cause of its loss.[3]<\/sup> In other words, UOB\u2019s claim would fail if it was found that, in the absence of any breach committed by Maersk, the Cargo would have nevertheless been discharged from the Vessel without presentation of the OBLs.<\/p>\n

However, the Judge clarified that it was for the Defendants <\/em>to evidentially prove that there was a more than even chance of UOB authorising the discharge of the Cargo without the OBLs having been presented to Maersk.[4]<\/sup><\/p>\n

The holdings above are premised on a baseline inference that banks like UOB take security for a reason, and would not part with the same in the absence of commercial reasons for doing so.[5]<\/sup> Therefore, it would not accord with commercial reality if UOB were to be saddled with the burden of proving that it would not have authorised the release of the Cargo without the presentation of the OBLs, in order to make out a claim in misdelivery.<\/p>\n

Application <\/span><\/b><\/h3>\n

Considering the facts, the Judge found that there were material evidential gaps in the Defendants\u2019 Counterfactual Scenario which rendered the same little more than speculation. To begin with, it was unclear whether Maersk would have looked to UOB, or would have been directed by other parties to inquire with UOB, for instructions regarding the release of the Cargo without presentation of the OBLs. The Judge therefore found it unsafe to find that UOB would, on a balance of probabilities, have authorised Maersk to discharge the Cargo to HLT without presentation of the OBLs, if Maersk initially refused to do so.[6]<\/sup><\/p>\n

Notably, the Judge also sought to distinguish the facts of the case from English High Court decision of Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV <\/em>[2022] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 467, and the decision on appeal, Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV<\/em> [2024] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 177 (\u201cEuronav<\/em><\/b>\u201d). There, the plaintiff bank failed in its misdelivery claim as the Court found that there was a more than even chance that the plaintiff would have eventually consented to discharge of the cargo without presentation of the original bills of lading.<\/p>\n

The Judge considered that the decision reached in Euronav<\/em> was a result of the plaintiff bank\u2019s <\/em>asserted counterfactual scenario that if the owners refused to discharge the cargo in the absence of original bills of lading: (a) the owners would have contacted BP as the bill of lading holder; (b) BP would then have advised the owners that the bill of lading would be endorsed and transferred to the plaintiffs; (c) the owners would have then sought the plaintiff for instructions on whether to discharge the cargo; and (d) the plaintiff would have instructed the owners not to discharge the cargo without its consent.[7]<\/sup><\/p>\n

In this connection, the Judge observed that in running its case on the basis of certain postulations as to what would have happened if the owners initially declined to deliver the cargo, the plaintiff in Euronav <\/em>effectively conceded the factual steps that ultimately enabled the court to focus its mind on how the bank would have responded to a hypothetical request for authorisation.[8]<\/sup><\/p>\n

In contrast, in The Maersk Katalin<\/em>, UOB had maintained that Maersk should have retained possession of the Cargo until the OBLs were presented for delivery.[9]<\/sup> This left the Defendants to frame \u2013 and to unsuccessfully prove \u2013 the intermediate steps between a hypothetical request by Maersk for authorisation to release the Cargo, and UOB\u2019s granting of authorisation for Maersk to release the Cargo to HLT without presentation of the OBLs.<\/p>\n

Significance<\/span><\/b><\/h3>\n

The Maersk Katalin <\/em>is a timely reminder to a holder of an original bill of lading (\u201cOBL holder<\/b>\u201d) that a misdelivery claim against a carrier for the discharge of goods without presentation of the original bill of lading may not succeed if the carrier can prove that the OBL holder would have consented to the discharge of the cargo in any event.\u00a0The Court will decide this as a question of fact.<\/p>\n

In this regard, the factors that the Court may consider include the established business practice between the parties,[10]<\/sup> the relevant trading and financing arrangement structure,[11]<\/sup> and the circumstances surrounding the bank\u2019s provision of financing.[12]<\/sup>\u00a0If the carrier is able to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the OBL holder would have in any case consented to the discharge of the cargo without presentation of the OBLs, the OBL holder\u2019s security interest would not be given effect to.<\/p>\n

Click here<\/span> <\/a>to view the article.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/span><\/span> [159] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[2]<\/span> [153] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[3]<\/span> [154] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[4]<\/span> [159] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[5]<\/span> [157] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[6]<\/span> [162]-[164] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[7]<\/span> [145] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[8]<\/span> [161] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[9]<\/span> [162] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[10]<\/span> [168], [191]-[192] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[11]<\/span> [171]-[173], [188]-[189] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n

[12]<\/span> [174]-[176], [181]-[182] of the Judgment<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Where a bank finances an international sale of goods, original bills of lading (\u201cOBLs<\/strong>\u201d) are amongst the documents that will be presented by a seller to the bank to obtain payment for the goods. The OBLs are held by the bank as security for the financing extended to the buyer. If the cargo is discharged by the carrier without presentation of the OBLs, the bank has a claim in misdelivery against the carrier.<\/p>\n

One of the defences raised against a misdelivery claim is that the bank would have consented to the cargo being discharged from the carrier without presentation of the OBLs in any event. As such, it is argued, the bank is not entitled to the damages sought as the carrier\u2019s breach of the contract of carriage did not cause the loss allegedly suffered by the bank. Such a defence was successfully established in Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV<\/em> [2022] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 467, where the English High Court rejected the plaintiff bank\u2019s misdelivery claim. The decision was affirmed on appeal.<\/p>\n

In the recent case of The Maersk Katalin<\/em> [2024] SGHC 282, the same defence was considered by the Singapore High Court, but the carrier in that case failed to succeed in this defence. Nevertheless, the case serves as a reminder that a bank\u2019s security over the cargo (by virtue of being holder of the OBLs) would be compromised if the carrier is able to prove that the bank would have counterfactually consented to the discharge of the cargo without presentation of the OBLs.<\/p>\n

Click here<\/span> <\/a>to view the article.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5661","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-publications"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282 - Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm<\/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:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"zh_CN\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282 - Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Where a bank finances an international sale of goods, original bills of lading (\u201cOBLs\u201d) are amongst the documents that will be presented by a seller to the bank to obtain payment for the goods. The OBLs are held by the bank as security for the financing extended to the buyer. If the cargo is discharged by the carrier without presentation of the OBLs, the bank has a claim in misdelivery against the carrier. One of the defences raised against a misdelivery claim is that the bank would have consented to the cargo being discharged from the carrier without presentation of the OBLs in any event. As such, it is argued, the bank is not entitled to the damages sought as the carrier\u2019s breach of the contract of carriage did not cause the loss allegedly suffered by the bank. Such a defence was successfully established in Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2022] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 467, where the English High Court rejected the plaintiff bank\u2019s misdelivery claim. The decision was affirmed on appeal. In the recent case of The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282, the same defence was considered by the Singapore High Court, but the carrier in that case failed to succeed in this defence. Nevertheless, the case serves as a reminder that a bank\u2019s security over the cargo (by virtue of being holder of the OBLs) would be compromised if the carrier is able to prove that the bank would have counterfactually consented to the discharge of the cargo without presentation of the OBLs. Click here to view the article.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-07T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-03T10:36:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dharmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u4f5c\u8005\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dharmin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 \u5206\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Dharmin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/204cfdbec448c27754d0255d35508e07\"},\"headline\":\"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-07T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-03T10:36:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1364,\"commentCount\":0,\"articleSection\":[\"\u51fa\u7248\u7269\"],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\\\/\",\"name\":\"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282 - Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-07T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-03T10:36:46+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/204cfdbec448c27754d0255d35508e07\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/204cfdbec448c27754d0255d35508e07\",\"name\":\"Dharmin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"zh-Hans\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7d255ccba3f8bf16f76680b9c255d2c0e5a816ac212f3ce70b1579352da68a53?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7d255ccba3f8bf16f76680b9c255d2c0e5a816ac212f3ce70b1579352da68a53?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/7d255ccba3f8bf16f76680b9c255d2c0e5a816ac212f3ce70b1579352da68a53?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dharmin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/shooklin.com\\\/zh-hans\\\/author\\\/shooklin_bok\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282 - Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm","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:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/","og_locale":"zh_CN","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282 - Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm","og_description":"Where a bank finances an international sale of goods, original bills of lading (\u201cOBLs\u201d) are amongst the documents that will be presented by a seller to the bank to obtain payment for the goods. The OBLs are held by the bank as security for the financing extended to the buyer. If the cargo is discharged by the carrier without presentation of the OBLs, the bank has a claim in misdelivery against the carrier. One of the defences raised against a misdelivery claim is that the bank would have consented to the cargo being discharged from the carrier without presentation of the OBLs in any event. As such, it is argued, the bank is not entitled to the damages sought as the carrier\u2019s breach of the contract of carriage did not cause the loss allegedly suffered by the bank. Such a defence was successfully established in Unicredit Bank AG v Euronav NV [2022] 2 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 467, where the English High Court rejected the plaintiff bank\u2019s misdelivery claim. The decision was affirmed on appeal. In the recent case of The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282, the same defence was considered by the Singapore High Court, but the carrier in that case failed to succeed in this defence. Nevertheless, the case serves as a reminder that a bank\u2019s security over the cargo (by virtue of being holder of the OBLs) would be compromised if the carrier is able to prove that the bank would have counterfactually consented to the discharge of the cargo without presentation of the OBLs. Click here to view the article.","og_url":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/","og_site_name":"Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm","article_published_time":"2025-01-07T00:00:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-03T10:36:46+00:00","author":"Dharmin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u4f5c\u8005":"Dharmin","\u9884\u8ba1\u9605\u8bfb\u65f6\u95f4":"7 \u5206"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/"},"author":{"name":"Dharmin","@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/#\/schema\/person\/204cfdbec448c27754d0255d35508e07"},"headline":"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282","datePublished":"2025-01-07T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-03T10:36:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/"},"wordCount":1364,"commentCount":0,"articleSection":["\u51fa\u7248\u7269"],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/","url":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/","name":"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282 - Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-01-07T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-03T10:36:46+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/#\/schema\/person\/204cfdbec448c27754d0255d35508e07"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"zh-Hans","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/the-maersk-katalin-2024-sghc-282\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Maersk Katalin [2024] SGHC 282"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/","name":"Shook Lin & Bok LLP | Leading Singapore Law Firm","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"zh-Hans"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/#\/schema\/person\/204cfdbec448c27754d0255d35508e07","name":"Dharmin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"zh-Hans","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7d255ccba3f8bf16f76680b9c255d2c0e5a816ac212f3ce70b1579352da68a53?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7d255ccba3f8bf16f76680b9c255d2c0e5a816ac212f3ce70b1579352da68a53?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7d255ccba3f8bf16f76680b9c255d2c0e5a816ac212f3ce70b1579352da68a53?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dharmin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/shooklin.com"],"url":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/author\/shooklin_bok\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5661","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5661"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5661\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7825,"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5661\/revisions\/7825"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5661"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5661"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/shooklin.com\/zh-hans\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5661"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}