Collins v. Collins (1858) 53 E.R. 916

Case Name: Collins v. Collins

Citation: (1858) 53 E.R. 916

Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Judgement: The judgement in the case of Collins v. Collins (1858) 53 E.R. 916 clarified that the arbitration clause in the agreement was valid and binding. It also established that an umpire was not necessary for the arbitration process unless explicitly stated in the agreement. This decision emphasized the flexibility of arbitration and reinforced the enforceability of arbitration clauses in contracts.


In the legal case of Collins v. Collins (1858) 53 E.R. 916, two people named Collins had a disagreement about their agreement. They had a rule in their agreement that said if they had a problem, they would ask someone else to help decide who was right and who was wrong. This is called arbitration. The question was, do they need another person, called an umpire, to do this? The court said that an umpire is not always necessary. This decision made it clear that arbitration is a good way to solve problems without going to court, and it’s flexible because parties can choose if they want an umpire or not.


In Collins v. Collins (1858) 53 E.R. 916, there were two people with the last name Collins. They had an agreement, and this agreement had a special part called a clause. This clause said that if they had a problem, they would not go to court. Instead, they would ask another person or people to help them decide who was right and who was wrong. This process is called arbitration.

The agreement they made had this special clause written in it. The disagreement they had was about the terms written in this agreement.

The special part of the agreement that talked about arbitration is called the “arbitration clause.”


  1. Did the agreement say how they should solve their argument?
    • The first question was about whether their agreement had clear instructions on how to settle their disagreement.
  2. Were they confused about needing another person to help with the decision?
    • The second issue was about whether they were uncertain if they should involve someone else to decide who was right and who was wrong in their disagreement.


In the case of Collins v. Collins (1858) 53 E.R. 916, the court decided two important things. First, they said that the special part of the agreement, called the “arbitration clause,” was valid. This means that the rule in the agreement about how to solve their problem was a good and proper rule.

Second, the court said that they didn’t have to bring in another person, known as an umpire, for the arbitration. The agreement didn’t say it was necessary, so they could solve their issue without one.

The “arbitration clause” in their agreement was the main point. It said how they should handle any disagreements.


In Collins v. Collins (1858) 53 E.R. 916, the court said that when people make an agreement, and it has a special rule called an “arbitration clause” to solve problems, that rule is important and valid. They also mentioned that if this rule doesn’t say you need another person (an umpire) to help decide, then it’s okay to settle the disagreement without one. This case helps us understand how rules in agreements can be used to solve problems in a fair and clear way.

“How does the Collins v. Collins (1858) case impact the way people can resolve disputes in agreements, considering both the importance of clear rules and the flexibility to adapt the resolution process?”

The Collins v. Collins (1858) case highlights the significance of having clear and explicit rules, such as an arbitration clause, within agreements to guide dispute resolution. It emphasizes that parties should define their problem-solving methods clearly to avoid confusion and conflicts. Additionally, the case showcases the flexibility within such agreements, enabling parties to tailor dispute resolution processes according to their preferences, as long as the agreement doesn’t specify otherwise. This combination of clear rules and flexible approaches can promote fairness and effectiveness in resolving disagreements within contractual relationships.