Judicial principles and studies
Request to Appoint a Referee: Spatial-Dependency Criterion in Article (35) Interpretation
The study examines a shift in judicial practice toward using spatial dependency to appoint a referee under Article (35), noting the impact on Amman Court of Appeal's competence in a fee-valued case.
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 examines a shift in judicial practice toward using spatial dependency to appoint a referee under Article (35), noting the impact on Amman Court of Appeal's competence in a fee-valued case.
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 addresses interpretation of Article (35) of the Code of Civil Procedure, focusing on the shift from using the dependency tied to the appellate route to applying spatial dependency, as adopted by the Court of Cassation in its general panel decision No. (8331/2023) dated 26/2/2024, while leaving intact legal positions where referees had been appointed by prior judgments.
Summary
The Court of Cassation's general panel embraced the spatial-dependency criterion for appointing the referee. In the instance where the case was valued for fee purposes at (7001) dinars, the Magistrate Courts Law No. (15) of 1952 in force at the time rendered Amman Court of Appeal the competent body, whether judged by spatial dependency or by appellate dependency because the arbitrators' decision was appealable to that court. Given the timing of the competing decisions, the quashing of the appeal court's referral appointment and subsequent rulings by the Court of Cassation was deemed inconsistent with the law for failing to examine the cassation appeal on its merits and address its grounds, which calls for the general panel to reverse the previous cassation decision and consider the grounds substantively.
Practical significance
Adopting the spatial-dependency test affects how courts determine which forum appoints a referee, while not disturbing previously established judicial appointments. It also underscores the duty of the Court of Cassation to decide cassation appeals on their merits and respond to stated grounds before issuing an annulment. This content is a general educational summary and not a court text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The study addresses interpretation of Article (35) of the Code of Civil Procedure, focusing on the shift from using the dependency tied to the appellate route to applying spatial dependency, as adopted by the Court of Cassation in its general panel decision No. (8331/2023) dated 26/2/2024, while leaving intact legal positions where referees had been appointed by prior judgments.
Summary?
The Court of Cassation's general panel embraced the spatial-dependency criterion for appointing the referee. In the instance where the case was valued for fee purposes at (7001) dinars, the Magistrate Courts Law No. (15) of 1952 in force at the time rendered Amman Court of Appeal the competent body, whether judged by spatial dependency or by appellate dependency because the arbitrators' decision was appealable to that court. Given the timing of the competing decisions, the quashing of the appeal court's referral appointment and subsequent rulings by the Court of Cassation was deemed inconsistent with the law for failing to examine the cassation appeal on its merits and address its grounds, which calls for the general panel to reverse the previous cassation decision and consider the grounds substantively.
Practical significance?
Adopting the spatial-dependency test affects how courts determine which forum appoints a referee, while not disturbing previously established judicial appointments. It also underscores the duty of the Court of Cassation to decide cassation appeals on their merits and respond to stated grounds before issuing an annulment. This content is a general educational summary and not a court 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.