Aer Lingus chief executive Mr Michael Foley told a committee investigating allegations of sexual harassment against him that two people had framed him and someone had "gone public" which had "fucked" him, the High Court heard yesterday.

When Mr Foley came in one morning last month after being out of the State and saw a newspaper report about the allegations, he told the committee: "This is assassination, this is lethal. This is worse than death, there is a reason for a death, you get on with life. This has destroyed my family. And I am telling you, it is not going to happen again, over my dead body."

The passage was contained in an affidavit by Mr Seamus Given, of Arthur Cox solicitors, who was appointed solicitor to the investigation committee and attended its meetings when it conducted interviews with Mr Foley, the complainants and others.

Ms Justice Carroll yesterday began the hearing of an application by Mr Foley for an interlocutory injunction pending the determination of his proceedings against Aer Lingus Group plc. A week ago he was granted a temporary injunction preventing the airline taking any further steps in the disciplinary process against him.

Mr Foley is also seeking to stop Aer Lingus taking further steps against him until a full and independent appeals procedure is in place to deal with the disciplinary matters and the findings of the initial investigation, which found against him. Aer Lingus is opposing the interlocutory application.

On May 18th, Mr Foley was advised in a letter from the company not to come into his office after a sub-committee of the airline board upheld two sexual harassment claims made against him.

In court yesterday, some 60 pages of affidavit evidence, plus correspondence, were opened in court by Ms Mary Irvine SC, for Mr Foley. In one letter, it was stated Mr Foley was emphatically denying allegations of sexual harassment. He said the allegations were untrue. The claims and publicity surrounding them had led to his good name being vilified.

In an affidavit opened at last week's court hearing, Mr Foley referred to allegations made by SIPTU worker director Ms Joan Loughnane and by another Aer Lingus employee, Ms Anne Lawlor. He maintained there was no adequate appeal structure in place to deal with his case and said a second disciplinary committee had different members to the committee which had heard the evidence.

In a second affidavit yesterday, Mr Foley said if the issue of an adequate appeal structure had been addressed in initial correspondence, the proceedings might have been avoided altogether. Even now, if the company were willing to acknowledge his rights in that regard, the proceedings might well be unnecessary or at least would be greatly simplified. As matters stood, he was left without any frank indication as to his appeal rights.

Mr Foley said he was committed to travel to Australia on behalf of Aer Lingus on March 24th. The previous day he was notified of the second complaint against him, that of Ms Lawlor. He decided to keep to his business commitments and, with considerable difficulty, ensured his detailed response to the complaint was made from Australia on March 27th.

He then aborted holiday plans in Australia and returned to Ireland on April 3rd. He was not called by the investigating committee until April 25th.

After a newspaper article on April 18th, Mr Foley said Aer Lingus chairman Mr Bernie Cahill effectively asked him to stand aside. While Mr Cahill had denied any ill-feeling towards him as a result of his refusal to comply with that request, Mr Cahill had said he would monitor how Mr Foley was performing. "I took this to mean that he would adopt an entirely different line if in future he took the view that I was not performing."

If the disciplinary process continued its course and he was dismissed, he would suffer the most enormous and irreparable damage to his reputation, Mr Foley said. The court was well aware of the media interest which the allegations against him had caused. His dismissal would be seen as a confirmation of the allegations and could only be premised upon a finding that he had been guilty of misconduct.

In his affidavit, Mr Given said it was his firm belief that an allegation of collusion between the committee and the chairman was absolutely without merit or foundation. At all times in its inquiries, he believed the committee was anxious to ascertain who breached confidentiality and the inquiry was directed not only to its ascertaining Mr Foley's position in the matter but also to the possibility of others having breached confidentiality.

Mr Given said an allegation of a conspiracy levelled by Mr Foley was considered at length by the committee and was the subject of questioning by it of most witnesses who appeared before it. Mr Foley was informed by the committee during an interview on April 25th that it had failed to uncover any evidence of alleged conspiracy.

A claim that one complainant - Ms Lawlor - had made a complaint against Mr Foley only because the chairman - Mr Cahill - pressurised her into bringing one was untrue. The committee, insofar as he could observe its actions, acted properly at all times and, insofar as he was aware, fully complied with its obligations to give Mr Foley fair procedures, Mr Given added.

The hearing continues today.