We agreed with Mr Caine's submissions. We doubted that the Appellant's Finnish application would be finally determined within the optimistic time scale canvassed by Mr Conti. We did not believe that any evidence relating to any such final determination was likely to be either admissible or relevant. By contrast we were satisfied that delay was very much to the detriment of Regatta and the Respondent. Accordingly we refused the application for an adjournment.

Before considering Mr Conti's, submissions on the appeal it is important to note that in the Appellant's Petition of Appeal the grounds of appeal were stated thus -

"7. "the learned,.Acting,.Deemster…:-

[1] misdirected himself in his finding that there was clear evidence that the Trustees in bankruptcy in Finland had compromised the Petition in Finland in that:-

[a] he failed to interpret correctly the translation of part of the Minutes of the Creditors Meeting of the 15th January 1998

[bl he failed to interpret correctly the translation of the Bankruptcy Inspector's report of the 19th January 1998

[c] he placed too much weight on the evidence of one only of the Trustees in bankruptcy namely Heikki Leisvuori whose evidence was partial to the Respondent

[d] he failed to give sufficient weight to the contradictory nature of Heikki Leisvuori's evidence and to the answers given by Heikki Leisvuori to questions in cross-examination

[2] was wrong in law in failing to recognise that he had a discretion not to recognise the Finnish Bankruptcy and to exercise his discretion in favour of the Appellant in view of the circumstances of this case."

During Mr Conti's submissions we observed that the grounds contained in paragraph 7[1] seemed to constitute an appeal against the Acting Deemster's findings of fact and that there is a heavy burden on those who seek to persuade this Court to reverse findings of fact made by a Deemster who has seen and heard the witnesses. In Plotts v Hewison [1978-80] MLR 159 [at 163] Glidewell JA said -