The existing theories pertaining to joinders and consolidations in arbitration present two contrasting schools of thought for examining multi-party and multi-contract arbitration requests. This article critically analyses the two opposing schools’ examination of joinders and consolidations to demonstrate the inadequacy of both. After highlighting the dire need for development of a fresh theoretical framework for assessing requests for joinders and consolidations, this article builds on consent-based theories to develop a ‘fragmented consent framework’ to understand consolidated arbitrations. This framework breaks down a party’s consent to arbitrate into consent for four major elements of arbitration and highlights various reasons why ‘consent to opposing/other arbitrating parties’ ought to be considered irrelevant for multi-contract arbitration-related questions. It concludes by highlighting the relative superiority of the fragmented consent framework as a method of assessing joinder/ consolidation requests, as compared to the existing theories.