In so far as Mr Conti sought to rely upon the two exceptions to the operation of Rule 169 as set out in Dicey & Morris: Conflict of Laws [12th Edition], we are satisfied that Mr Conti made no submissions to Acting Deemster Corrin as to the applicability of eitherexception and that on the unchallenged evidence before Acting Deemster Corrin there was no room for a finding by him that either exception applied.

As to Mr Conti's challenge to the exercise of discretion we remind ourselves of what this Court recently said in Barlow Clowes International Limited v Eurotrust International Limited namely that -

"for this Court to interfere with the exercise of anyjudicial discretion it must be shown that the judge at first instance exercised his discretion under a mistake of law ... or misapprehension of the facts ... or disregard of principle-::...or that he took into account irrelevant matters ... or failed to exercise his discretion…or that the conclusion which the judge reached in the exercise of his discretion "exceeded the generous ambit within which a reasonable disagreement is possible" and was thereby plainly wrong so that the only legitimate conclusion was that he had erred in the exercise of his discretion … In all of such circumstances it is the duty of this Court to:substitute its own decision for that of the judge at first instance, but otherwise, it should not interfere with the exercise of a judicial discretion."

We are satisfied that Mr Conti has failed to show that any circumstances exist whereby this Court would be entitled to conclude that Acting Deemster Corrin erred in the exercise of his discretion so that this challenge must fail.

For the reasons set out above we are satisfied that Acting Deemster Corrin was entitled to reach the decision which he did and that the Appellant's grounds of appeal are wholly misconceived and without merit. Accordingly that this appeal is dismissed