The chief executive of a Limerick port company has told the High Court that "malicious, vexatious and totally untrue" allegations have been made against him as part of an attempt by property developer John Hegarty and a "disgruntled" Limerick port service provider, Brian Cosgrave, to "derail" the Limerick Docklands Initiative.

When Brian Byrne was suspended last month from his post as chief executive of the Shannon Foynes Port Company, the letter informing him of his suspension was accompanied by a Mass card, Ms Justice Laffoy was also told. The locks to his office were changed and his swipe card was immediately invalidated. All of this was an attempt, Mr Byrne said, "to make me believe that I would never be CEO of SFPC again and that this decision was a fait accompli before the investigation committee began to examine the allegations against me".

To say the claims made against Mr Byrne and against Morgan Leahy, a non-executive director of the port company are "politically motivated and driven" is "an understatement", Hugh Mohan SC, for both men, said yesterday. The allegations amounted "to nothing".

Contrary to what the court was told by the port company on Wednesday, his clients had not sought to evade service of legal documents, Mr Mohan also said. They were in Dublin all last Monday and Monday night consulting with him and their new solicitors.

A court application by the company in which interim orders were secured on Wednesday restraining Mr Byrne and Mr Leahy from dealing with or destroying certain documents and computers belonging to the company was unnecessary in circumstances where the company was written to last Friday informing it the materials were being "schedulised" and would be returned, counsel added. Mr Leahy had never personally been asked to return documents, he said.

The interim orders were discharged yesterday by Ms Justice Laffoy.

The judge was also told that two computers in the possession of Mr Byrne and Mr Leahy, which belong to the port company would be returned to the company. Documents relating to port company business were being "schedulised" and would be returned to the company within a week on completion of that process, Mr Mohan said.

On that basis, and after making directions for the exchange of legal documents, the judge adjourned proceedings by the port company against Mr Byrne and Mr Leahy to Monday next.

The case arose after Mr Byrne was suspended pending the outcome of an investigation into the allegations made against him by Mr Cosgrave to the effect that he and Mr Leahy had abused their positions to secure personal gain and orchestrated a vendetta against Mr Cosgrave and treated him unfairly.

Mr Mohan said Mr Leahy has declined a request by the port company board to stand aside as director because he had done nothing wrong.

In an affidavit, Mr Byrne said Mr Hegarty had told him earlier this year that he wished to acquire the Limerick docklands property and was prepared with co-investors to bid up to €80 million for it.

He had told Mr Hegarty any transaction involving the sale of State-owned land would be subject to a public tendering process. When this happened, Mr Hegarty had told Mr Byrne that he was vehemently opposed to the port company's attempts to offer the property for sale in this manner.

Mr Hegarty then became a protagonist in the Limerick Port Users' Group, which lobbied for the retention of the status quo, Mr Byrne said.

Last summer, John Hegarty/Hegarty Metal Holdings Ltd, brought High Court proceedings against the port company, claiming it did not have authority to sell port lands. In August, solicitors for Mr Hegarty wrote to Mr Byrne as chief executive and the board members of the port company "implying that legal proceedings would follow as a result of Mr Hegarty's perception that I had painted an unfavourable picture of his business".

In relation to a claim that CCTV footage showed Mr Byrne removing boxes from his office at Foynes on September 20th last, Mr Byrne said he would regularly have company files in his possession as part of his daily work and there was no attempt to deliberately remove files from the company or affect its ability to operate.