In these cases the court considered whether to set aside or remit to the tribunal an award on the ground of serious irregularity under section 68(2)(d) of the English Arbitration Act 1996, for failure by the tribunal to consider all the issues put to it. In particular, the tribunal had failed to consider two issues on liability and three issues on quantum. In a first judgment Akenhead J found there had been serious irregularity in relation to one liability issue and one quantum issue, causing substantial injustice. In a second judgment, the award was set aside for resolution by a different tribunal. Noting that mostly decisions are remitted to the original tribunal, the judge considered the importance of ensuring that justice is not only done, but seen to be done. In deciding to set aside the award so that the matter could be resolved by a different tribunal, he relied on the seriousness of the irregularity, and that if the tribunal reached the same conclusions as before an inference might be drawn that justice had not been done. Although he acknowledged there would be additional costs involved in referring the dispute to a different tribunal, he didn't consider that those would be disproportionate given the nine figure sums in dispute and the fact that disclosure and evidence had already been prepared. This case is of particular interest because there are so few decisions concerning serious irregularity under section 68, and it is even rarer for a decision to be set aside for resolution by a different tribunal.