Kyle Sandilands declared he “just wants to get back to work” as he launched his $88 million legal battle against former employers ARN in Federal Court on March 27.
The former The Kyle and Jackie O Show radio host addressed reporters as he arrived at court in Sydney, ready to attempt to recoup outstanding wages from his landmark $100 million 10-year contract. His show was officially cancelled and his employment terminated on March 18.
“I’m just happy that we can get in today and get this ball rolling,” he said. “I just want to get back to work as quick as possible – I’ve got a family to support.”
The 54-year-old said his lucrative contract “shouldn’t have been terminated” in the first place. He and long-time co-host Jackie “O” Henderson only signed the deal in November 2023.
No opportunity to ‘remedy’ the issue
Following an on-air argument on February 20, Jackie took time off the show. It was later announced that she “cannot continue to work” with the shock jock. Her own contract was then terminated.
Given 14 days to “remedy” the situation, Kyle’s legal team has argued that ARN didn’t give him any such opportunity. They had forbidden the co-hosts from contacting each other.
Kyle’s statement of claim further argues that the pair’s show was built on being “controversial” and “deliberately provocative”. That included using “crude humour, ribald commentary and sexual innuendo”. “On occasions, the Show was confrontational,” it reads.
“Banter and tension between Mr Sandilands and Ms Henderson was a central dynamic to the Show,” it continues.
“Mr Sandilands generally performed the role of the dominant and abrasive personality who was deliberately outrageous and often offensive,” it added.
Jackie’s was apparently as “a moderating role”, “as a warmer and more emotionally attuned character”.
Contract termination ‘invalid’
In a statement to the ASX on March 23, ARN Media confirmed that Kyle had commenced legal proceedings. It claimed termination of his contract was invalid.
“In summary, the applicants claim the termination of Mr Sandilands’ contract was invalid on the basis they allege that there was no act of serious misconduct or breach of contract,” the statement read.
It added that the termination was “unconscionable under the Australian Consumer Law”.
“The applicants seek an order for specific performance of two contracts, payment of whatever amounts are due and payable under the contracts at the time of judgement, and damages.”
