Hillingdon Council's chief executive has failed in a High Court bid to stop the London borough taking steps that may lead to his suspension.

Mr Leatham went to court claiming procedural steps planned by the council which may lead to his suspension were "unlawful" and breach safeguards set out in his employment contract and local authority regulations.

Mr Leatham sought an injunction against the council, but Mr Justice Underhill refused to intervene in the case, saying there was nothing to prevent the council suspending Mr Leatham temporarily while inquiries were made as to whether he had a disciplinary "case to answer".

Given the sensitivity of a chief executive's role, the judge said it could "give rise to acute difficulties" if the council had no power to suspend him.

Mr Underhill accepted that, if Mr Leatham is in fact suspended, some might view it as a "stigma", but told the court that would have to be "accepted as a misfortune".

If Mr Leatham was able to refute the allegations against him in the inquiry process, the judge said any suspension may "only last a few days".

Andrew Stafford QC, for Mr Leatham, had told the judge that on July 28 this year - the day after he went on holiday - Hillingdon issued a press release to the effect that he was leaving the council.

That was despite the fact there had been "no agreement for the departure of Mr Leatham", he said.

When Mr Leatham returned on August 10, he found another officer - who was "styled chief executive" - had booked meetings in his office.

Nigel Giffin QC, for the council, said there was a "major factual dispute about the history of dealings" between Mr Leatham and Councillor Ray Puddifoot, but it was "common ground that the relationship between them has not always been an easy one".

He told the judge: "The rights and wrongs of this history are not the subject matter of the present claim.

"This is not a wrongful dismissal case - Mr Leatham has not been dismissed and there is no suggestion that he could or would be dismissed without a formal procedure being followed through a number of stages."

Mr Leatham had his application for an injunction against the council dismissed and was told to pay costs.