Judicial principles and studies
Risk Allocation and Central Bank Experts in Forged-Check Cases
Examines whether expert selection must follow the official registry, the status of Central Bank employees serving as experts, and allocation of liability for forged checks under Article 270.
Compensation and insurance
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
Examines whether expert selection must follow the official registry, the status of Central Bank employees serving as experts, and allocation of liability for forged checks under Article 270.
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 whether expert appointments must come from the official registry, parties' contractual right to name an expert, the court’s discretion to appoint outsiders when the registry cannot supply an expert, the status of Central Bank employees called as experts, and allocation of liability for forged checks under Article 270.
Summary
The experts regulation does not create an automatic nullity for appointing an expert outside the registry. Parties may agree on an expert; absent agreement the court selects from the approved registry but may appoint an outsider for justified reasons. Lack of objection by the parties can imply consent to an out-of-registry appointment. Central Bank employees invited as experts act in a personal capacity if they disclose neutrality and no contrary fact is proven. Under Article 270 the drawee bank bears responsibility for payment of a forged check unless fault is attributable to the drawer; proven failure by the drawer to safeguard checkbooks can reduce the bank’s liability. A technical expert report that meets the statutory requirements (Article 83) and is free of legal challenge may be relied upon as evidence.
Practical significance
Courts should state reasons when deviating from the registry, treat expert neutrality disclosures as material, and rely on technical expertise to apportion fault between banks and the drawer under Article 270 when the expert report is legally sound. This content is an educational summary and not a judicial text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The study addresses whether expert appointments must come from the official registry, parties' contractual right to name an expert, the court’s discretion to appoint outsiders when the registry cannot supply an expert, the status of Central Bank employees called as experts, and allocation of liability for forged checks under Article 270.
Summary?
The experts regulation does not create an automatic nullity for appointing an expert outside the registry. Parties may agree on an expert; absent agreement the court selects from the approved registry but may appoint an outsider for justified reasons. Lack of objection by the parties can imply consent to an out-of-registry appointment. Central Bank employees invited as experts act in a personal capacity if they disclose neutrality and no contrary fact is proven. Under Article 270 the drawee bank bears responsibility for payment of a forged check unless fault is attributable to the drawer; proven failure by the drawer to safeguard checkbooks can reduce the bank’s liability. A technical expert report that meets the statutory requirements (Article 83) and is free of legal challenge may be relied upon as evidence.
Practical significance?
Courts should state reasons when deviating from the registry, treat expert neutrality disclosures as material, and rely on technical expertise to apportion fault between banks and the drawer under Article 270 when the expert report is legally sound. This content is an educational summary and not 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.