was forced to re-finance the acquisition, and suffered losses as a consequence. The dispute was referred to ICC arbitration and the tribunal issued a partial award.  The tribunal found that PIC was in breach of contract in failing to pay US$7.5 billion.  It also held that Dow had established that it was entitled to damages for consequential losses of just over US$2 million. PIC challenged the award on the basis that the tribunal had not dealt with PIC's argument that it was not enough for Dow to show that the loss was one which the parties had contemplated: Dow also had to show that PIC had assumed responsibility for that loss (the assumption of responsibility issue). The question of whether there was a serious irregularity within sub-section 68(2)(d) raised three specific questions: Whether the assumption of responsibility question was an "issue" within the meaning of that sub-section. If so, whether it was "put to" the tribunal. Whether the tribunal failed to "deal with" it. The Court referred to the distinction drawn in the authorities between "issues" on the one hand, and matters often referred to as "arguments", "points", "lines of reasoning" or "steps" in an argument. The decisions demonstrate a consistent concern to maintain the "high threshold" that has been said to be required for establishing a serious irregularity, and this concern has sometimes been emphasised by references to "essential", "key" or "crucial" issues.  However, these adjectives were not intended to import a definitional gloss on the wording in section