[c] Mr Conti submitted that the Acting Deemster placed too much reliance on the evidence and credibility of Heikki Leisvuori and he gave examples of inconsistency in the evidence of Mr Leisvuori. These inconsistencies would have been apparent to the Acting Deemster who no doubt bore in mind that Mr Leisvuori, who gave evidence English, had been learning English for only three years. We have no doubt that Acting Deemster Corrin who saw and heard Mr Leisvuori was in the best position to judge whether he should accept his evidence. We regret to say that none of Mr Conti's submissions have persuaded us that there is any legitimate basis for us interfering with Acting Deemster Corrin's assessment of Mr Leisvuori or his consequential findings of fact.

We are satisfied that these grounds were in reality appeals against findings of fact of Acting Deemster Corrin, that there was no incontrovertible factual material to show that such findings were not iustified and that the appeal on these grounds should be dismissed.

Mr Conti's final submission- based on the ground of contained in paragraph 7[2] of the Petition - was in two parts, firstly that the Acting Deemster failed to recognise that he had a discretion as to whether to recognise the Finnish bankruptcy and secondly that he erred in failing to exercise his discretion in favour of the Appellant and against recognition.

Both Mr Conti and Mr Caine agree that Acting Deernster Corrin had a discretion as to whether to recognise the Finnish bankruptcy. Whilst it is correct that in his judgment the Acting Deemster neither stated that he had a discretion or why he proposed to exercise such discretion in favour of recognition, we are satisfied that he did appreciate that he had a discretion not to recognise the Finnish bankruptcy but elected in the exercise of his discretion to do so. We bear in mind that this was an extempore judgment. Furthermore having considered the notes of the hearing, it seems to us that in effect both parties submitted to the Acting Deemster that he did have a discretion and that, together with the language of his judgment - "in these circumstances" - in our view puts the matter beyond any doubt.