Judicial principles and studies
Expert Evidence and Inspection: Large Discrepancy Standard and the Need for a Third Expert
Decision reference: تمييز حقوق هيئة عامة رقم (3893-2025).
The points set out the judicial standard for identifying a large discrepancy between expert reports and when a third expert is required, noting that the number of experts alone may be insufficient to resolve the issue.
General legal topic
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
The points set out the judicial standard for identifying a large discrepancy between expert reports and when a third expert is required, noting that the number of experts alone may be insufficient to resolve the issue.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
The points address the interplay between expert evidence and inspection, and when a third expert is required where a large discrepancy appears between two expert reports, whether before the same court or between trial and appellate levels. Case number cited in the points: Distinction of Public Body Rights No. (3893-2025).
Summary
- A third expert is required when a substantial discrepancy exists between two expert reports before the same court or across judicial instances, to reach a fair assessment. - The sheer number of experts cannot by itself establish the absence of a large discrepancy, particularly where estimates differ markedly without justification while their bases and elements are similar. - The operative criterion for absence of a large discrepancy is the convergence (fading difference) between the last two expert reports, regardless of how many expertises were conducted. This is an educational general summary, not a judicial text and not legal advice.
Practical significance
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The points address the interplay between expert evidence and inspection, and when a third expert is required where a large discrepancy appears between two expert reports, whether before the same court or between trial and appellate levels. Case number cited in the points: Distinction of Public Body Rights No. (3893-2025).
Summary?
- A third expert is required when a substantial discrepancy exists between two expert reports before the same court or across judicial instances, to reach a fair assessment. - The sheer number of experts cannot by itself establish the absence of a large discrepancy, particularly where estimates differ markedly without justification while their bases and elements are similar. - The operative criterion for absence of a large discrepancy is the convergence (fading difference) between the last two expert reports, regardless of how many expertises were conducted. This is an educational general summary, not a judicial text and not legal advice.
Practical significance?
This is a general educational summary based on the points published in the official source. It does not replace the original material or a review by Ashraf Al-Khawaja before relying on it for any action.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Courts, judicial principles, and enforcement
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Commercial and civil litigation
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.