The Appellant appeals against such order.

At the outset of this appeal Mr Conti, on behalf of the Appellant, sought an adjournment. He reminded us that on 10th October 1997 the Appellant had filed an application in the Turku Region District Court in Finland challenging the resolution referred to in paragraph 6[b] of the Minutes of the Creditors' meeting on 10th September 1997, which purported to authorise the agreement between the Respondent and the Trustees, and that the Appellant sought relief on the basis that the resolution was unlawful and the subsequent agreement between the Respondent and the Trustees was null and void. Whilst this application had not been pursued because he thought he had secured an agreement with the. Finnish Bankruptcy lnspector, the Appellant now wished to pursue such application This application was vigorously contested by Mr Caine, on behalf of the Respondent who observed that no such adjournment had been sought from Acting Deemster .Corrin. We agree with Mr. Caine that it would appear that the Appellant had only sought to pursue his Finnish application in the face of an adverse decision from Acting Deemst Corrin. Furthermore Mr Caine submitted that

[a] it would be unjust to grant an adjournment for an unspecified period, Mr Conti having conceded that there was likely to be an appeal from the decision of the District Court so that there was unlikely to be any final determination before late 1999 at the earliest, and that in any event

[b] evidence relating to a future decision of the Finnish Court would be -

[1] inadmissible since by prompt prosecution of the Finnish application and/or adjournment of the hearing before Acting Deemster Corrin, such evidence could have been before Acting Deemster Corrin so that this Court should not exercise its discretion under Order 45 Rule 9 of the Rules of Court to allow such further evidence to be adduced

[2] irrelevant on the basis that, if a Finnish Court finds that there has been any infringement of Finnish bankruptcy law, the Appellant's remedy lies against the Trustees in Finland and not against the Respondent here.