ADAMOPOULOS v OLYMPIC AIRWAYS SA SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL MAHONEY JA 6 November 1989 [1989] NSWCA 1 Mahoney JA This is an application on motion by Mr Constantinos Adamopoulos, the appellant in an appeal pending before this Court. Mr McGrath appears for Olympic Airways SA, the second respondent to the appeal, being the only party relevantly interested at the present time. The application is for two orders framed as follows: "1. The appellant will ask the court to release the moneys which are frozen by the court in the ANZ Bank Marrickville branch. This money belongs to the appellant and his wife who appears as fourth defendant in the court below. 2. The appellant appeals to the court to order Olympic Airways to conform and give answers to the letters which were sent but are still unanswered. I am referring to the letter which was addressed on 25 September 1989 and the letter on 30 October 1989." It is agreed on this motion that the bank account referred to in par 1 of the notice of motion is a bank account which was the subject of an order made by Powell J in the proceedings below. The substance of that order, as the court has been informed, is that it was declared that, although the account apparently stood in the name of Mr Adamopoulos or Mr Adamopoulos and his wife, the moneys in that account belonged or were to be paid to Olympic Airways SA and Qantas Airways Ltd. The purpose of the appeal in this matter is, inter alia, to contest the correctness of that order or at least to have it set aside so that, as Mr Adamopoulos suggested in the previous proceedings, a fresh trial can be had. It appears therefore that the order which Mr Adamopoulos is seeking in this part of the notice of motion is an order which in substance and in effect would be the result of the upholding of the appeal in the matter. Mr Adamopoulos has moved on an affidavit of 13 October 1989 made by himself. It makes various allegations which were or could have been made and no doubt have been the subject of contest or examination at the trial before Powell J. In the circumstances, I do not think that an order in the form set forth in par | is an appropriate order to be made. The appeal is still pending. No doubt, if it proceeds to completion, the standing of the judge's order is one of the matters which may be able to be dealt with on the appeal. As to the second matter, I have indicated to Mr Adamopoulos during argument that the fact he has written letters which have not been answered does not warrant the court making orders that those letters be answered. I do not think that it would be proper to order that to be done. I have indicated to Mr McGrath, as a matter of courtesy to Mr Adamopoulos, that if letters are outstanding and are not answered and the letters relate to, for example, the proceedings in the Bankruptcy Court, the fact that they have not been answered may be a matter which Mr Adamopoulos may be able to bring forward in that court in opposition to any bankruptcy proceedings against him. But that is not a matter in respect of which orders can or should be made in this matter. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS The orders that I make therefore are that the notice of motion of 30 October 1989 be dismissed. In the circumstances, it should be dismissed with costs.