需要贵族院判定的有4个主要问题：

Question (1): Accrual of owners' right to advance freight

Question (2): Effect of charter-party being terminated

Question (3): Set-off as between charterers and owners

Question (4): Set-off as between charterers and bank

  本文只说明第三个问题，Question (3): Set-off as between charterers and owners。关于该问题，贵族院的Brandon of Oakbrook勋爵认为根据海上货物运输合同，如本案中的航次租船合同，运费是货方向出租人支付运费的货币代价。运费需支付的时间取决于合同的条款。它可以在卸货港交付货物时支付，在这种情况下，它被称为“运费”；或者可以在航次的早期阶段支付，例如在提单签字完成后，这种情况称为“预付运费”；或者其中的一部分可能在航次的早期阶段及余额在交货时支付。

Under acontract for the carriage of goods by sea, such as the voyage charter-party in the present case, freight is the monetary consideration payable by the cargo-owner to the shipowner for the carriage of the goods. The time when the freight is payable depends upon the terms of the contract. It may be payable on delivery of the goods at the port of discharge, in which case it is called "freight" without any qualifying epithet; or it may be payable at anearly stage of the voyage, such as on completion of the signing of bills oflading, in which case it is called "advance freight"; or part of itmay be payable at an early stage of the voyage and the balance on delivery.

Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵认为这是英格兰法律的一项长期规定，至少从19世纪早期开始，货主无权设立作为运费索赔的抗辩，因为有些出租人违反了与运输有关的合同，例如造成部分货物损失或损坏，但必须通过交叉诉讼强制执行他对这种违约的任何权利。******法院法令于1873年至1875年生效之前，该规则的效力是，货主起诉出租人只能通过对出租人单独采取交叉诉讼来追偿其损害；自从这些法案生效以来，这项规则的效力一直是货主不必采取单独的交叉诉讼，而是（虽然没有约束力）在出租人的诉讼中通过反诉方式提出他的交叉诉讼。该规则同样适用于在货物交付时应付的运费以及在航程的早期阶段预付运费。

It is a long established rule of English law, dating at least from the early part of the19th century, that a cargo-owner is not entitled to set up, as a defence to a claim for freight, damage suffered by him by reason of some breach of contractby the shipowner in relation to the carriage, causing for instance partial loss of or damage to the goods, but must enforce any right which he has in respect of such breach by a cross-claim. The effect of the rule before the coming into force of the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, 1873-1875 was that a cargo-owner sued by a shipowner for freight could only recover his damage by bringing a separate cross-action against the shipowner; the effect of the rule since the coming into force of those Acts has been that the cargo-owner, instead of having to bring a separate cross-action, has been able (though not bound) toraise his cross-claim by way of counterclaim in the shipowner's action. The rule applies equally to freight payable on delivery of the goods and to advance freight payable at some earlier stage of the voyage.

Brandonof Oakbrook勋爵认为所提到的法治与许多其他国家普遍存在的法治不同，并且不时在各方面受到相当多的批评。然而，上诉法院在Henriksens Rederi A / S v. T.H.Z  Rolimpex（The Brede），[1973] 2Lloyd's Rep.333; [1974] Q.B.233案中确认了该规则的继续存在，其中对较早的权威进行了充分审查。上诉法院的判决得到了本法院在Aries Tanker Corporation v.Total Transport Ltd.（The Aries）[1977] 1Lloyd's Rep 334; [1977] 1 W.L.R. 185案的一致通过。因此，有关规则（将从现在起称之为“抵扣规则”），无论其优点或缺点如何，都不容置疑。

The rule of law referred to differs from that prevailing in many other countries and has been subjected to a considerable amount of criticism in various quarters from time to time. The continued existence of the rule was, however, affirmed by theCourt of Appeal in Henriksens Rederi A/S v. T.H.Z. Rolimpex (The Brede), [1973]2 Lloyd's Rep. 333; [1974] Q.B. 233, in which the earlier authorities were fully examined. That decision of the Court of Appeal was unanimously approved by your Lordships' House in Aries Tanker Corporation v. Total Transport Ltd.(The Aries), [1977] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 334; [1977] 1 W.L.R. 185. It follows that the rule concerned (which I shall from now on call "the rule against deduction"), whatever its merits or demerits