The director of a major construction company yesterday asked the High Court to rule that his dismissal from the post of contracts director was null and void.
Mr Michael J. Hegarty jnr, with an address at Holland Court, Holland Park, Liscannor, Co Clare, is seeking an injunction restraining the company, P.J. Hegarty and Sons, of Carrolls Quay, Cork, from dismissing him.
He is also seeking an order directing continued payment of his annual salary of £71,000 and all premiums and contributions to his pension and life assurance plans until the date of his full action against the company.
A further order stopping the company from appointing any person other than Mr Hegarty to the position of contracts director is being sought, in addition to damages and costs against the company, which is contesting all the claims.
Mr Justice Shanley was told the defendant was a company of substance, with a turnover of around £90 million a year.
In an affidavit read to the court, Mr Hegarty said that he, his brother, John, and his cousin, Mr Patrick J. Hegarty, through a shareholders' agreement, had agreed that the operation of the Hegarty group and the respective shareholdings in Larinda Ltd and J.P.M. Holdings would be based on each owning a third of the issued share capital of both these companies.
Larinda Ltd and J.P.M. Holdings are the owners of the entire issued share capital in Ballycora Investments, which is the holding company of the Hegarty group. The defendant company, P.J.Hegarty and Sons, is a whollyowned subsidiary of Ballycora Investments.
In his statement, Mr Michael J. Hegarty said that in addition to his salary, he also received an allowance of £10,000 a year for the running of his car and £14,000 a year for entertainment purposes.
From May, 1994 to April, 1995 he was given leave of absence because of ill health.
He said that by June 1995 it became apparent that Mr John Hegarty (his brother) and Mr Patrick J. Hegarty (his cousin), both directors of P J Hegarty and Sons, had decided to do whatever was necessary and legally possible to remove him from employment.
In July that year his brother and his cousin refused to permit him to resume his executive duties. He said that was a board decision. He initiated proceeding challenging this decision but for a variety of reasons not germane to the current hearing a statement of claim was not delivered until June 1997.
According to draft minutes of a board meeting of November 12th last, the directors of the company dismissed him from employment with immediate effect and he received a redundancy cheque for £5,100, he said.
Mr Hegarty jnr said the meeting was presided over by Mr Michael Deasy. He said that Mr Deasy, at a meeting on August 29th last, made a number of serious complaints against him.
Mr Colm Allen SC, for the plaintiff, said this was ironic in that the purported independent chairman was the same person who made serious charges in trenchant terms against his client. Counsel said Mr Deasy was compromised.
In an affidavit, Mr John P. Hegarty, managing director of the company, said he recalled that the plaintiff was drinking to excess in 1993 and 1994 and was hospitalised in 1993 to dry out. In 1994, the plaintiff spent one month at a rehabilitation centre in Cahir, where he was treated for alcohol abuse.
In May, 1994, the plaintiff was granted leave because of his poor performance, regular absenteeism and unacceptable conduct.
At a board meeting in Carrolls Quay, Cork, on August 29th last, a number of charges were made against the plaintiff. These included allegations of lack of commitment to the business, lack of control and supervision of contracts, generally erratic decision-making, absence of leadership and concern, absenteeism without explanation, untruthfulness, inappropriate delegation of responsibility and dereliction of duty. Mr John Hegarty said the plaintiff refused to respond.
The hearing continues today.