It is well known that the commercial transactions in today’s world are excessively complex, involving multiple stakeholders and multiple contracts, all of which work towards a singular unified aim. This article discusses how the complexity of commercial transactions has led to the proliferation of the permissibility of multi-contract arbitrations in jurisdictions across the globe. However, analysis of the cases across jurisdictions reveals that there is neither a uniform nor a logical method used by courts/tribunals across the world for assessment of the permissibility of multi-contract arbitrations. This article proposes a novel method for assessment of the permissibility of multi-contract arbitrations in such complex commercial scenarios, which is coined as the ‘fragmented consent framework’. This framework breaks down the concept of ‘consent’ in arbitration into four separate elements, namely ‘consent to the dispute’, ‘consent to the tribunal’, ‘consent to the procedure’ and ‘consent to the opposite/other arbitrating parties’. The articles postulates that while the first three elements of consent are essential, the last element ought not to be considered necessary while determining whether a multi-contract arbitration is permissible in a given scenario. The article concludes by demonstrating how the fragmented consent framework is an ideal method for dealing with multi-contract arbitration requests, and ought to be uniformly used by courts/tribunals across jurisdictions.
Asian International Arbitration Journal