Aer Lingus chief executive Mr Michael Foley produced no evidence to support his claim that people conspired against him when he was accused of sexual harassment, the airline claimed in the High Court yesterday.

Mr Foley was effectively suspended by the airline two weeks ago after a board subcommittee upheld complaints against him by two female employees.

He will learn this morning the fate of his attempt to halt the disciplinary process when a judgment is delivered by Ms Justice Carroll.

Mr Foley feared his dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct was imminent. A separate board subcommittee was assessing the findings of the investigation, which followed complaints by a worker-director, Ms Joan Loughnane, and a member of the company's head office staff, Ms Anne Lawlor. Mr Foley rejected the report of the investigation as "perverse".

While the subcommittee had offered Mr Foley the opportunity to make a written or oral submission, the airline's position was that it was bound to uphold the finding of the investigation.

Counsel for Aer Lingus, Mr Paul Gallagher SC, rejected Mr Foley's claim that he should be entitled to an appeal before a board subcommittee took disciplinary action. He also said Aer Lingus could not agree to an appeal heard outside the company as sought by Mr Foley.

Mr Gallagher said the procedure adopted was fully in accordance with Mr Foley's contract, which placed additional burdens on him as the most senior executive in the company.

The company was entitled to complete the disciplinary process before an appeal. It was not appropriate to have such matters heard by an external body.

But Mr Foley's counsel, Ms Mary Irvine SC, said the involvement of many board members in the hearings meant an appeal within the company could not be guaranteed to be free of bias. Failure to grant an appeal amounted to a breach of contract.

Mr Gallagher said Mr Foley had not taken an opportunity to ask questions of witnesses or call additional witnesses during the investigation. That inquiry was in accordance with Mr Foley's right to natural justice and it had gone beyond his ordinary entitlements to a full hearing of the case against him.

Ms Irvine said failure to grant an injunction in advance of a trial would have a catastrophic impact on Mr Foley's professional life. "It's not good enough that a committee should be bound by findings made by another subcommittee," Ms Irvine said.