Judicial principles and studies
Technical Expert Report: Court of Cassation Review and Negotiable Instrument
This summary outlines procedures for expert reports, timing for objecting to an expert, limits on the Court of Cassation's review of evidence, and the effect of an uncollected negotiable instrument.
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
This summary outlines procedures for expert reports, timing for objecting to an expert, limits on the Court of Cassation's review of evidence, and the effect of an uncollected negotiable instrument.
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
This summary addresses rules governing technical expert reports—filing the expert report, returning it for completion or assigning another expert—objections to an expert, parties' agreement to appoint an unlisted expert, the Court of Cassation's limits in reviewing evidentiary weight, and the effect of an uncollected negotiable instrument under Article 109 of the Commercial Law.
Summary
- Under Article 86/3, once an expert report is filed it is kept in the case file and served on the parties; the court may return the report to the expert for completion or assign another expert. Calling experts for discussion and then requiring a subsequent report does not amount to a new technical-expertise procedure. - Article 109 provides that payment by a commercial instrument is effective only upon collection; when checks are returned unpaid, treating their value as part of the claimed amount for the goods' price is consistent with the law. - Trial judges have discretion to assess and weigh evidence; the Court of Cassation does not reweigh or change that assessment unless the trial court's conclusion lacks any evidentiary support. - An objection to an expert's impartiality must be made within one week from appointment or from learning of the grounds, per Article 84/4; failure to follow that procedure precludes the objection later. - Parties may expressly or implicitly agree to appoint an expert who is not listed in the register under Article 84/1; an appellate court's appointment of an unlisted expert is not unlawful if counsel did not object.
Practical significance
- Practitioners should raise challenges to an expert's neutrality within the statutory one-week period or forfeit the objection. - Returning an expert report for completion after discussion is not a new expertise process; courts may accept experts outside the register where no objection is raised. - The Court of Cassation's review does not extend to substituting the trial court's evidentiary weighting unless the trial findings lack supporting evidence. This content is a general educational summary and not a judicial text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
This summary addresses rules governing technical expert reports—filing the expert report, returning it for completion or assigning another expert—objections to an expert, parties' agreement to appoint an unlisted expert, the Court of Cassation's limits in reviewing evidentiary weight, and the effect of an uncollected negotiable instrument under Article 109 of the Commercial Law.
Summary?
- Under Article 86/3, once an expert report is filed it is kept in the case file and served on the parties; the court may return the report to the expert for completion or assign another expert. Calling experts for discussion and then requiring a subsequent report does not amount to a new technical-expertise procedure. - Article 109 provides that payment by a commercial instrument is effective only upon collection; when checks are returned unpaid, treating their value as part of the claimed amount for the goods' price is consistent with the law. - Trial judges have discretion to assess and weigh evidence; the Court of Cassation does not reweigh or change that assessment unless the trial court's conclusion lacks any evidentiary support. - An objection to an expert's impartiality must be made within one week from appointment or from learning of the grounds, per Article 84/4; failure to follow that procedure precludes the objection later. - Parties may expressly or implicitly agree to appoint an expert who is not listed in the register under Article 84/1; an appellate court's appointment of an unlisted expert is not unlawful if counsel did not object.
Practical significance?
- Practitioners should raise challenges to an expert's neutrality within the statutory one-week period or forfeit the objection. - Returning an expert report for completion after discussion is not a new expertise process; courts may accept experts outside the register where no objection is raised. - The Court of Cassation's review does not extend to substituting the trial court's evidentiary weighting unless the trial findings lack supporting evidence. This content is a general 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
Companies, contracts, and investment
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Corporate, governance, and investment advice
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.