Aer Lingus chairman Mr Bernie Cahill has denied claims that he acted in "collusion" with a two-person subcommittee appointed by the company's board to examine allegations of sexual harassment against chief executive Mr Michael Foley.

Mr Cahill also declared there was no evidence for Mr Foley's assertion that because of alleged hostility shown to him, media leaks and an alleged "adversarial attitude" towards him by some board members, he had every reason to "fear the worst".

In an affidavit asking the High Court to reject Mr Foley's application for an interlocutory injunction against the company, pending the trial of the action between the parties, Mr Cahill said he believed Aer Lingus plc would suffer irreparable harm if the procedures put in place were interfered with.

While acknowledging Mr Foley was the recipient of an adverse finding in regard to sexual harassment allegations, it was still "wholly inappropriate" for Mr Foley to claim that he would be denied fair procedures, natural justice and an honest outcome to deliberations of a second board subcommittee.

Mr Cahill, who was not in court for yesterday's hearing, said it was "simply not true" that he suggested to Mr Foley he stand aside while investigations were continuing. He also "completely refuted" the suggestion made by Mr Foley that he had "pressurised" an Aer Lingus employee, Ms Anne Lawlor, into bringing a complaint alleging harassment.

"I have shown no hostility to Mr Foley and believe that, in fact, the defendant [Aer Lingus plc] has at all material times done its utmost to ensure Mr Foley received a proper and fair hearing during the investigation stage of what were very serious allegations made against him by female members of the staff of the defendant company."

Mr Cahill also rejected suggestions that the company had been responsible for leaks to the media.

He said a worker director of Aer Lingus, Mr Willie Clarke, had told him another worker director, Ms Joan Loughnane, was making a sexual complaint against Mr Foley and wished to speak to Mr Cahill on a one-to-one basis.

It was incumbent on him to ensure the complaint was properly investigated in accordance with company policy, Mr Cahill said. He sought legal advice from Arthur Cox solicitors which advised such an investigation should be conducted by two independent non-executive board members.

In a second affidavit, Mr Cahill said there was nothing in Mr Foley's contract which gave him a right of appeal to some independent body or person outside Aer Lingus. Apart from legal considerations, the board could not delegate to any other party the function of determining a complaint against its chief executive and the appropriate sanction to be imposed should such a complaint be upheld.

It had been repeatedly explained to Mr Foley, through his solicitors, that any right of appeal before any determination by the special (second) committee was premature.

Depending on the determination of that committee, it was the board's intention to "review the matter" and decide whether it should grant Mr Foley any further appeal, or board hearing, or hearing by a board subcommittee.