The managing director of Dublin BMW dealer Maxwell Motors failed in a High Court bid yesterday to restrain the company from dismissing him from his position.

Mr Justice Liam McKechnie heard that Peter Peart, acting chairman of Maxwell Motors, of Blackrock, Co Dublin, had informed managing director James Hennessy that the board considered he had not been running the company to its satisfaction and that it would be considering his future with the company.

Mr Peart had told Mr Hennessy in a letter that full and fair procedures would be taken into consideration by the board in the making of its decision.

The court was told that Maxwell Motors feared it could lose the franchise for the sale of BMW motors if management of the company continued as at present.

Mr Hennessy had claimed that the directors, who planned to meet yesterday afternoon, had already made up their minds to dismiss him, and had and would fail to take into consideration fair procedures in coming to any decision about his future with the firm.

The judge was told that Mr Hennessy had obtained a temporary injunction at a late evening sitting of the High Court on September 7th last, restraining the board from taking a decision to dismiss him at a meeting on September 10th.

Michael Forde SC, counsel for Maxwell Motors, said Mr Hennessy was yesterday seeking a permanent injunction restraining his dismissal pending a decision by an arbitrator as to whether or not fair procedures had to date been applied by the company and seeking a declaration on what fair procedures should be applied.

Mr Forde, who appeared with Daniel Simms, said such an application was premature and pointed out that Mr Justice Dan Herbert, while continuing the interim injunction until yesterday, had stayed the entire court proceedings taken by Mr Hennessy.

Yesterday, the judge said it was unnecessary and quite undesirable for the court to go into detail on the background and history of the case, not only because that might unnecessarily disclose and expose commercial information, but in view of the current ongoing situation between Mr Hennessy and the company.

He said the court was being asked to continue a restraining order on the company which had been imposed by Mr Justice George Birmingham on September 7th but, since that date, there had been a significant development in that Mr Justice Herbert had stayed the entire proceedings commenting at the time that the temporary injunction should "wither" on foot of the stay.

The judge said that, on September 3rd, a letter to Mr Hennessy from Mr Peart had stated that "on instructions of the board", the company was not being run to the satisfaction of the board in line with standard practice. The letter had further stated that his suspension would continue until September 10th when the board would meet to consider whether or not he would be dismissed.

The judge said that, in the context of a dispute between the two parties, he could not identify the wording of the letter as being demonstrative of the board having prejudged the matter as claimed by Mr Hennessy. He believed other letters written to Mr Hennessy and his legal team equally did not suggest evidence of prejudgment of a decision to dismiss.

Considering Mr Hennessy's application for an interlocutory injunction solely on its merits, he felt the evidence before him did not afford a sufficient legal basis for granting the restraint sought.

He granted the company the legal costs of yesterday's proceedings.