Judicial principles and studies
Summoning Experts for Discussion and the Trial Court's Authority to Rule on the Request
Decision reference: تمييز حقوق هيئة عامة رقم ٣٦٥/٢٠٢٥.
The study outlines the trial court's discretion to order experts to appear for discussion, identifying when such a measure is appropriate (e.g., deficiencies or ambiguities in the report). Denying the request does not automatically amount to a legal violation.
Courts and procedure
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 study outlines the trial court's discretion to order experts to appear for discussion, identifying when such a measure is appropriate (e.g., deficiencies or ambiguities in the report). Denying the request does not automatically amount to a legal violation.
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 study examines the trial court's discretionary power to order experts to attend for discussion, focusing on how the court evaluates the expert's report and performance.
Summary
The court's decision is one of discretion: it may require experts to appear where there are shortcomings in their performance, deviations from the assigned task, or where the report contains ambiguity. Conversely, a clear and unambiguous report ordinarily does not justify summoning the experts. Failing to grant a party's request to summon experts does not automatically amount to a breach of the law.
Practical significance
Courts should assess the sufficiency and clarity of expert reports before deciding to summon experts, and parties should be aware that such requests can be refused without constituting legal error. This content is a general educational summary and does not constitute a judicial text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The study examines the trial court's discretionary power to order experts to attend for discussion, focusing on how the court evaluates the expert's report and performance.
Summary?
The court's decision is one of discretion: it may require experts to appear where there are shortcomings in their performance, deviations from the assigned task, or where the report contains ambiguity. Conversely, a clear and unambiguous report ordinarily does not justify summoning the experts. Failing to grant a party's request to summon experts does not automatically amount to a breach of the law.
Practical significance?
Courts should assess the sufficiency and clarity of expert reports before deciding to summon experts, and parties should be aware that such requests can be refused without constituting legal error. This content is a general educational summary and does not constitute a judicial text or legal advice.
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.