Ryanair pilot John Goss told the High Court yesterday that the airline's decision to suspend him from flying was "a vindictive act" in light of there being overwhelming evidence that he was fit to fly.

Roddy Horan SC, for Mr Goss, said Ryanair had breached his client's constitutional rights to natural justice and had acted in breach of legislation dealing with disciplinary procedures.

Ryanair's complaints about Mr Goss were never really clear, counsel said. The company had made serious allegations in a letter to Mr Goss of December 10th, 2004 from David O'Brien, the company's director of flight and ground operations.

This alleged that Mr Goss had intimidated pilots at Stansted airport but did not give the names of any of these pilots or the nature of the complaints.

The letter stated that Ryanair had received a" number of complaints from pilots based at Stansted alleging that you have made telephone calls warning pilots not to accept positions on the new 737-800 aircraft based here in Dublin".

Counsel said solicitors acting for Capt Goss never got any answer from Ryanair when it was asked to confirm that those pilots alleged to have made complaints would be in attendance at a meeting between the company's representatives and Mr Goss on February 16th, 2005.

Fundamental information about the nature of the complaints were never furnished.

If Ryanair was correct, then the complaints were either in writing or someone in Ryanair management took a note of them, Mr Horan said.

Mr Goss's solicitor had sought such information.

Mr Horan said a subsequent letter of January 28th this year saw a shifting of ground by Ryanair.

It had sought to elevate claims that there had been evasion and lack of co-operation on the part of Mr Goss.

An employer had to act reasonably and in good faith towards an employee, even in the context of disciplinary proceedings, and in Mr Goss's case the good faith requirement was singularly lacking.

Counsel contended that Ryanair's entire disciplinary process as initiated in the letter of December 10th, 2004 arose because Mr Goss had complained of victimisation to the Labour Relations Commission.

The December 10th letter was despatched by the company to counter the emergence of IALPA (Irish Airline Pilots' Association which is affiliated to the trade union, IMPACT), he said.

IALPA had written a letter on November 3th, 2004 which raised with the company issues of concern to pilots.

There was a categorical rejection of that request by Ryanair's chief executive, Mr Michael O'Leary. In reply to Mr Justice Budd, Mr Horan agreed there was no constitutional requirement for an employer in Ireland to negotiate with a trade union.

Mr Horan said the letter of December 10th had been a reaction by Ryanair to Mr Goss's querying of a letter from the company imposing a €15,000 training levy on pilots.

The letter of December 10th made extraordinarily serious charges and yet failed to provide any detail.

The company denies these claims in its defence. Ryanair states it did not threaten Mr Goss or wrongly accuse him of having failed to co-operate with a company inquiry into the Standsted complaints.

The company also denies Mr Goss's allegations that it acted negligently or in breach of its duties; denies that it sought to make an example of Mr Goss.

It denies it is in breach of contract or that it inflicted emotional suffering on Mr Goss.

The decision of the chief pilot to refuse to permit Mr Goss to return to flying duties was not taken on an improper basis.

The hearing before Mr Justice Declan Budd continues today.