A decision is to be given by the High Court on Wednesday next on an application to jail Ryanair chief executive Michael O'Leary and two other company executives for allegedly failing to reinstate a senior pilot with the company to flying duties in breach of a previous court order.
At one stage during yesterday's proceedings, Mr Justice Barry White said he wished to have the matter finalised.
He did not want the matter coming back to court on a daily basis and have somebody from Ryanair, "like Daniel O'Connell", working out how a "coach and four" might be driven through an order of the court.
Referring to previous High Court judgments involving Judge Brian Curtin and former TD Liam Lawlor, he said it had been made abundantly clear that nobody in the State was above the law, and he certainly was not going to allow that in the present case.
At the conclusion of a two-day hearing on the application yesterday, the judge said that he had "a lot of reading to do" in connection with the case and he obviously wished to deal with it as soon as possible. He would give his decision at 11am on Wednesday.
The court instructed that a slot should be left open on the company's roster from Wednesday next to restore John Goss to flying duties in the event of him being successful in the judgment that day.
It is claimed by Mr Goss that Ryanair is in contempt of the earlier court order and he is seeking the attachment and committal of Mr O'Leary; the company's director of flight and ground operations, David O'Brien; and its chief pilot, Ray Conway.
An order for the sequestration (seizure) of Ryanair's assets is also being sought.
Ryanair denies there is a breach of a court order. It had told Mr Goss that in its view it was operationally inappropriate that he should fly while the court proceedings are pending and that it was suspending him on full pay.
Two suggestions were made during yesterday's hearing to try to resolve the situation over the weekend but were not agreed to.
Initially, it was proposed that an independent medical expert from abroad might medically examine Mr Goss over the weekend to determine any aspect of stress on his part and report to the court.
Three names were suggested and, following an adjournment, counsel for Ryanair said it appeared that one of them was available to carry out the examination and that the company was agreeable to such a course.
The judge suggested that the case might be adjourned to allow the medical examination take place, with Mr Goss being rostered for duty but agreeing to waive his right to fly in the intervening period.
Richard Nesbitt SC, for Ryanair, said he could see sense in that suggestion. But Hugh Mohan SC, for Mr Goss, said he would not be happy with that course.
Mr Mohan said the previous court order was in place and had never been appealed.
Two medical examiners had given his client a clean bill of health to fly, and a psychiatrist had given a favourable report. All the medical evidence was in Mr Goss's favour.
In his submissions, Mr Nesbitt proposed that there was no contempt and referred to an affidavit of Mr Conway that at all times his decision in relation to Mr Goss was based on operational considerations for safety and in accordance with best practices.