{"id":291548,"date":"2026-07-07T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-07-07T14:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=291548"},"modified":"2026-08-04T09:58:39","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T07:58:39","slug":"refining-the-framework-for-the-setting-aside-of-arbitral-awards","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2026\/07\/07\/refining-the-framework-for-the-setting-aside-of-arbitral-awards\/","title":{"rendered":"Refining the Framework for the Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\">A Review of the Singapore High Court&#8217;s Decision in <em>DLS v DLT and Another<\/em> [2025] SGHC 61<\/h1>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Arya Gerard<\/strong>, Senior Associate at <strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/tsmp-law-corporation\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">TSMP Law Corporation<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When does a ruling from an arbitral tribunal amount to an award and why does it matter? Can parties raise new grounds to set aside an award after the three-month time period for applications to set aside awards has passed? These issues were addressed by the Singapore High Court (\u201c<strong>SGHC<\/strong>\u201d) in <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-dlt-v-dls-judgment-of-the-high-court-of-singapore-2025-sghc-61-thursday-10th-april-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><em>DLS v DTL <\/em>[2025] SGHC 61<\/a>. As to the first question, the SGHC held that only decisions which definitively or finally dispose of a matter are awards under the International Arbitration Act 1994 (\u201c<strong>IAA<\/strong>\u201d), which are susceptible to setting-aside applications. As to the second question, the SGHC clarified that it may be possible to introduce other grounds for setting aside an award so long as the underlying setting-aside application was made within the three-month time period.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><strong>Background Facts<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Claimant (\u201c<strong>Contractor<\/strong>\u201d) and the Defendant (\u201c<strong>Sub-Contractor<\/strong>\u201d) were parties to an agreement for a construction project in Country X (\u201c<strong>Project<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Sub-Contractor later commenced arbitration against the Contractor, claiming losses arising from delays in the completion of the Project. The arbitration was seated in Singapore, governed by the International Chamber of Commerce (\u201c<strong>ICC<\/strong>\u201d) <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-icc-international-chamber-of-commerce#publications-rules\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Rules of Arbitration in force on 1 January 2021<\/a> (\u201c<strong>ICC Rules<\/strong>\u201d), and heard before a three-member arbitral tribunal (\u201c<strong>Tribunal<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">After the constitution of the Tribunal, the Sub-Contractor brought an application seeking purported \u201c<em>urgent interim measures<\/em>\u201d which led to the Tribunal\u2019s decisions recorded in the First Partial Award dated 19 June 2024 (and corrected on 9 October 2024). The Contractor sought to set aside the following two decisions in the First Partial Award (\u201c<strong>Setting-Aside Application<\/strong>\u201d) which the Tribunal granted in the Sub-Contractor\u2019s favour, on the grounds of breach of natural justice and exceeding the scope of submission to arbitration (the \u201c<strong>Two Grounds<\/strong>\u201d):<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A payment order requiring the Contractor to pay a sum of US$172,135.54 on a monthly basis to the Sub-Contractor to cover the Sub-Contractor&#8217;s operational costs until the final completion of the Project (&#8220;<strong>Monthly Payment Decision<\/strong>&#8220;); and<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A payment order requiring the Contractor to make a one-off lump sum payment of US$117,339.48 to the Sub-Contractor (&#8220;<strong>Lump Sum Payment Decision<\/strong>&#8220;).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">About 3 months after the Contractor brought the Setting-Aside Application, the Contractor sought the Court\u2019s permission to add an additional ground of apparent bias in relation to one of the arbitrators (\u201c<strong>Subject Arbitrator<\/strong>\u201d) to partially set aside the First Partial Award (\u201c<strong>Leave Application<\/strong>\u201d). Prior to the Leave Application, and after the commencement of the Setting-Aside Application, the Contractor filed an application to the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-icc-international-chamber-of-commerce#about\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ICC Court of Arbitration<\/a> (\u201c<strong>ICC Court<\/strong>\u201d) challenging the independence of the Subject Arbitrator (\u201c<strong>Challenge<\/strong>\u201d). The ICC Court subsequently dismissed the Challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><strong>The Court\u2019s Decision and Reasoning<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Setting-Aside Application<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The SGHC first considered the threshold question of whether the decisions in the First Partial Award were \u201cawards\u201d under section 2 of the IAA or \u201corders or directions\u201d under section 12 of the IAA. The SGHC emphasised that only awards could be set aside, and that section 24 of the IAA and Article 34(2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (\u201c<strong>Model Law\u201d)<\/strong> accordingly have no application to orders or directions.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Adopting a substance over form approach, the SGHC highlighted the following propositions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>orders or directions are provisional in nature, and do not definitively or finally dispose of either a preliminary issue or a claim in an arbitration;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>a provisional decision is inherently capable of being varied in due course;<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>an order for interim payment of damages prior to a final assessment is a provisional decision; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>how a decision is labelled is not decisive as to its nature.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The SGHC found that the Monthly Payment Decision was an order or direction under section 12 of the IAA, as the decision was subject to review in the final award. In particular, the Monthly Payment Decision stated that the payment order was subject to the Sub-Contractor providing security \u201c<em>in the event that repayment is subsequently ordered<\/em>\u201d (see [27(c)]). In fact, the Sub-Contractor had proposed providing security to support its application for the payment order, thereby implicitly acknowledging that the relief claimed was interim in nature (see [29]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Conversely, the SGHC found the Lump Sum Payment Decision was an award under section 2 of the IAA as the Tribunal had found that the sum was owing and due to the Sub-Contractor without any conditions (i.e., with no possibility of repayment or a final assessment) (see [34]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The SGHC dismissed the application to set aside the Monthly Payment Decision, since it was not an \u201caward\u201d that was capable of being set aside. As for the Lump Sum Payment Decision, although it was capable of being set aside, the SGHC did not grant the application on the Two Grounds raised by the Contractor. The SGHC observed that (i) the Lump Sum Payment Decision fell within the matters that were before the Tribunal, and (ii) there was no breach of natural justice because the Tribunal had applied its mind to the relevant issues and had provided the parties with a reasonable opportunity to present their cases (see [51]\u2013[61]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Leave Application<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The SGHC considered two preliminary points: (i) whether the Contractor was precluded from introducing a new basis for setting-aside after the three-month period allowed for applications to set aside awards had passed (see section 24 of the IAA read with Article 34(3) of the Model Law); and (ii) the effect of the ICC Court\u2019s decision on the Challenge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The SGHC confirmed that the Contractor was not precluded from seeking the court\u2019s permission to introduce a new basis for setting-aside, given that the Setting-Aside Application had been filed within the prescribed three-month time frame (see [91]). However, the court would still have to determine whether to exercise its discretion to allow the introduction of a new basis for setting-aside, by considering the following factors:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>whether the new basis could and should have been raised at first instance; and<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>whether the new basis was hopeless.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this instance, the Contractor\u2019s Leave Application was filed on 5 February 2025, approximately three months after the Setting-Aside Application was commenced (13 November 2024). While the Setting-Aside Application had been filed within the prescribed three-month time limit under Article 34(3) of the Model Law, the Contractor\u2019s Leave Application was not. The Contractor\u2019s apparent bias argument arose from facts that it learned only after the filing of the Setting-Aside Application (see [106]). However, the SGHC ultimately found that the new basis of apparent bias was hopeless (see [186]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Contractor\u2019s apparent bias argument was premised on the Subject Arbitrator\u2019s alleged failure to disclose that he was one of the members of the arbitral tribunal in a prior arbitration involving the Sub-Contractor\u2019s chairman in his personal capacity. The SGHC reaffirmed that the test to determine apparent bias is whether there are circumstances which would give rise to a reasonable suspicion or apprehension in a fair-minded reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts that the tribunal may be biased and that a fair hearing may not be possible as a result (see [120]). In particular, even if there was non-disclosure of circumstances that ought to have been disclosed, a finding of apparent bias would not necessarily follow suit (see [123]).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As for the outcome of the ICC Court\u2019s decision, the SGHC noted that the fact that the ICC Court had rejected the Challenge did not preclude the Contractor from seeking to set aside aspects of the First Partial Award on the basis of apparent bias (see [100]). In this regard, the SGHC\u2019s analysis on apparent bias underscores two key principles. First, the failure to disclose a relevant circumstance does not, without more, establish apparent bias. The Court must still assess whether the undisclosed matter would give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator\u2019s impartiality in the eyes of a fair-minded reasonable person. Second, institutional decisions on arbitrator challenges, such as those rendered by the ICC Court, are not binding on the Singapore Courts exercising supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral awards, though they may be relevant to the court\u2019s analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><strong>Commentary<\/strong><\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The SGHC\u2019s judgment is noteworthy in three respects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">First, the SGHC\u2019s decision affirms the Singapore courts\u2019 adoption of a substance over form approach in determining the nature of arbitral decisions. Parties to arbitral proceedings should frame the interim relief sought in a manner that safeguards the relief from challenges raised by way of setting-aside applications. For instance, parties seeking interim payment orders should expressly characterise the relief as provisional and subject to adjustment in the final award, include conditions such as security or repayment obligations in the event of an adverse final determination, and avoid language suggesting that the tribunal is making a final disposition of the underlying claim. In practice, this may involve requesting that the Tribunal\u2019s order expressly states that it is without prejudice to the parties\u2019 rights in the final award (e.g., Article 28(1) of the ICC Rules, which contemplates interim measures that preserve or restore the status quo). By structuring relief in this way, parties can minimise the risk that an interim measure is reclassified as a final award susceptible to setting aside.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Second, to determine if there was apparent bias based on the Subject Arbitrator\u2019s alleged non-disclosure, the SGHC considered the interaction between the ICC Rules, the ICC Note to Parties and Arbitral Tribunals on the Conduct of the Arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration (1 January 2021), and the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-iba-international-bar-association\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">International Bar Association Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration<\/a> (\u201c<strong>IBA Guidelines<\/strong>\u201d). Notably, the SGHC outlined that the disclosure obligations under the IBA Guidelines appear to be greater than those under the ICC Rules, given that a subjective test is applied to determine both independence and impartiality (see [163]). Arbitrators should remain alive to the Orange List at Part II of the IBA Guidelines, which sets out a list of situations giving rise to doubts as to the arbitrator\u2019s independence or impartiality and may warrant disclosure depending on the circumstances. The practical implication of this divergence is significant: compliance with the disclosure requirements under the applicable institutional rules may nonetheless fall short of the standard contemplated by the IBA Guidelines. This raises the question of whether the IBA Guidelines\u2019 broader disclosure standard should be adopted universally as a baseline requirement across all institutional rules. Proponents of universal adoption would argue that a higher disclosure threshold promotes transparency and reinforces parties\u2019 confidence in the impartiality of the Tribunal. However, critics may contend that overly expansive disclosure obligations risk generating unnecessary challenges and satellite litigation, thereby increasing costs and delays. The SGHC\u2019s decision suggests that, at least in Singapore, the IBA Guidelines serve as a useful reference point for assessing disclosure adequacy, even where the applicable institutional rules impose a narrower obligation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Third, the SGHC interpreted the three-month timeline to file a setting-aside application to apply to the underlying Setting-Aside Application only. That said, parties should be mindful that they would not usually be permitted to introduce new facts and circumstances that could and should have been raised at first instance if such facts were already known at the time of the filing of a setting-aside application. The permissibility of including new facts and circumstances would primarily depend on (i) whether the opposing party would suffer prejudice that cannot be compensated by costs, (ii) the stage of the proceedings at which the amendment is sought, and (iii) whether the new ground is supported by facts that were not previously available to the applicant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Recently, the Ministry of Law (\u201c<strong>MinLaw<\/strong>\u201d) commissioned the Singapore International Dispute Resolution Academy (\u201c<strong>SIDRA<\/strong>\u201d) to conduct a <a href=\"https:\/\/sidra.smu.edu.sg\/sites\/sidra.smu.edu.sg\/files\/2025-03\/Review%20of%20the%20Singapore%20International%20Arbitration%20Act%20(2024)_final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">study<\/a> on the international arbitration regime in Singapore. One of the questions SIDRA considered was whether the time limit to file a setting-aside application should be reduced. SIDRA was of the view that the current three-month time limit for setting aside applications should not be reduced but that a new provision should be enacted to extend the time limit in setting aside applications involving fraud or corruption. Given that MinLaw\u2019s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mlaw.gov.sg\/public-consultation-on-the-international-arbitration-act-1994-of-singapore\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">public consultation<\/a> on the IAA concluded on 2 May 2025, it remains to be seen whether any amendments to the IAA will be made in respect of the three-month timeline and how the Singapore courts will interpret such a provision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"345\" src=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/2024-05-Editorial-Banner-singapore-1-1024x345.jpg\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-289828\" srcset=\"https:\/\/daily.jusconnect.com\/~www\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/2024-05-Editorial-Banner-singapore-1-1024x345.jpg 1024w, https:\/\/daily.jusconnect.com\/~www\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/2024-05-Editorial-Banner-singapore-1-300x101.jpg 300w, https:\/\/daily.jusconnect.com\/~www\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/2024-05-Editorial-Banner-singapore-1-768x259.jpg 768w, https:\/\/daily.jusconnect.com\/~www\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/2024-05-Editorial-Banner-singapore-1-750x253.jpg 750w, https:\/\/daily.jusconnect.com\/~www\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/2024-05-Editorial-Banner-singapore-1-1140x385.jpg 1140w, https:\/\/daily.jusconnect.com\/~www\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/2024-05-Editorial-Banner-singapore-1.jpg 1500w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-style-default has-small-font-size is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Editor:<\/strong>\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/p\/bernice-tan-rui-lin\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Bernice\u00a0Tan<\/strong><\/a>, Senior Associate at\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/firm\/drew-napier\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Drew &amp; Napier<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0and SG VYAP Editorial &amp; Publishing\u00a0Director<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Arya Gerard<\/strong> serves as one of the Co Vice-Chairpersons of the Technology and Innovation Committee at the Law Society of Singapore. She has experience working on arbitration cases under the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-siac-singapore-international-arbitration-centre\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">SIAC<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-icc-international-chamber-of-commerce\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">ICC Rules<\/a>. Arya also has a keen interest in the challenges posed by emerging technologies and actively participates in initiatives that promote the responsible adoption of information technology within the legal community. Through her practice and continued engagement with technological trends, she hopes to help shape legal responses that balance technological advancement with the public interest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Singapore High Court ruling DLS v DTL [2025] SGHC 61 clarifies arbitral awards vs. interim orders and the 3-month deadline for setting aside awards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":291557,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"171"},"jnews_social_meta":{"twitter_description":"Singapore High Court ruling DLS v DTL [2025] SGHC 61 clarifies arbitral awards vs. interim orders and the 3-month deadline for setting aside awards.","fb_description":"Singapore High Court ruling DLS v DTL [2025] SGHC 61 clarifies arbitral awards vs. interim orders and the 3-month deadline for setting aside awards.","fb_title":"Refining the Framework for the Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards","fb_image":"291559","twitter_image":"291559","twitter_title":"Refining the Framework for the Setting Aside of Arbitral Awards"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"","type":"","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[],"bad":[],"score_override":"","override_value":"","rating":[],"price":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,209,170,207,196,195,188,129,160,251,171,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-291548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-arbitration-aftermath-post-award","category-asia-pacific","category-commercial-arbitration","category-construction","category-industry","category-legal-insights","category-news","category-partnerships","category-sg-vyap","category-singapore","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291548","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=291548"}],"version-history":[{"count":20,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291548\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":291937,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/291548\/revisions\/291937"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/291557"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=291548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=291548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=291548"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=291548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}