Kyle Sandilands has officially been pulled off the airwaves and pulled into a full-blown legal stoush with Australian Radio Network. ARN has confirmed it has terminated his 10‑year contract after labelling his conduct in an on‑air argument with Jackie “O” Henderson an “act of serious misconduct” and a breach of contract. Sandilands, for his part, says he doesn’t accept that and now the question is: what actually happens next.?
In a statement, Sandilands said: “I’ve got a contract until 2034. I’ve got rights under that contract. And ARN hasn’t honoured the contract. So, it’s over to my lawyers.”
He also argued ARN tried to “burn the place down” after the blow‑up, claiming they sacked Henderson, suspended him and made it impossible for the show to continue.
So, what legal steps can Kyle and Jackie O take?
Workplace relations lawyer Michael Byrnes told PEDESTRIAN.TV that Sandilands and Henderson are likely to argue that ARN wrongfully ended their deals. “They’re going to be asserting a wrongful termination of their respective contracts. They had separate contracts,” he says. “Unless the matter is resolved or settled in some way, it’ll be heading for court. And a very big breach of contract case for both of them.”
Based on the reported value of the remaining term of Sandilands’ agreement, Byrnes says there is “the potential being damages of up to $88 million, which is the reported value of the remainder of the contract. It won’t be that much, but that’s certainly the starting or headline figure”. If ARN ultimately loses, he says, “whatever way you cut it… it would very likely face a damages payout in the tens of millions of dollars”.
Will Kyle and Jackie go back on air?
If a court or negotiation finds the terminations were invalid, this doesn’t end with a big reunion show. “They won’t be reinstated. It’ll just be about money,” Byrnes says.
Any case would be about damages for wrongful breach, not forcing ARN to put the show back together.
From there, another legal concept kicks in: mitigation of damages. Byrnes explains that Sandilands and Henderson, as the “innocent parties”, will still be expected to make reasonable efforts to earn an income.
“Kyle won’t be able to just go to his mansion in LA and hang out and then claim the full $88 million,” he says. If they win, a court would start with the value of the remaining contract and subtract what they’ve managed to earn elsewhere, which still leaves the potential for a very large cheque.
Subject to any non‑compete clauses, Byrnes says they could, in theory, “start getting back on air from today” with another network or via a podcast or other platform. It’s likely there are non‑competes built into those contracts, so he expects there may be a wait of a few months. But in his view, not only can they return to some form of broadcasting, they “should in order to fulfil their obligation to mitigate the loss”.
How strong is ARN’s “serious misconduct” argument?
ARN has pinned its decision on Sandilands’ behaviour during the February 20 broadcast, saying the way he spoke to Henderson amounted to “serious misconduct” and breached his contract.
Sandilands criticised his co‑host’s interest in star signs, saying it left her being “off with the fairies” and “almost unworkable” while they were discussing the astrological birth chart of Prince Andrew, and suggested she wasn’t doing her job properly, claiming “everyone in this building has mentioned it to me”, which reduced Henderson to tears and led to her taking a leave of absence from the show.
Byrnes thinks that characterisation of “serious misconduct” will be closely examined if the matter reaches court.
He notes there are two main problems. First, ARN kept him on air after the clash. “They allowed him to stay on air even after that exchange,” he says, which is “usually inconsistent with a subsequent assertion that someone has engaged in serious misconduct, which gives rise to a right to terminate the contract”.
Second, while Sandilands “didn’t cover himself in glory” and has apologised, Byrnes questions “whether it was so serious as to warrant serious misconduct, particularly given the nature of the show and the exchanges that Kyle and Jackie O have had that have been similar previously that have not had a similar outcome”.
Over nearly three decades, the show has pushed through controversy after controversy, from rulings over “vulgar, sexually explicit and deeply offensive” segments, to the infamous 2009 lie detector stunt involving a 14‑year‑old rape survivor, plus multiple findings over graphic sexual content and even on‑air games using recordings of staff urinating — and the program stayed on air through all of that.
Alongside ARN’s decision, the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) imposed license conditions on KIIS Sydney and Melbourne following investigations into Kyle and Jackie O’s breakfast segment. The Licence Condition will be in effect for five years.
Is this likely to settle quietly?
Short answer: probably not.
Byrnes says that in most cases “the vast, overwhelming majority of workplace relations disputes end in settlement and resolution”, usually behind closed doors. But here, the money and the size of ARN make that much harder.
He notes that this could be “a real financial challenge” for the company.
“ARN itself — it’s not Netflix, it’s not Amazon. They don’t have a market capitalisation of billions and billions of dollars where a settlement of say, just to pick a number out of the air, $40 or $50 million is not significant,” he explains.
Because of that, he says, “I think it is very likely to end up in court”.
If it does, it won’t be over quickly. A breach of contract claim like this “can take some years” to move through the courts, especially when it’s about money rather than getting someone reinstated.
In other words: the mics might be off, but this story isn’t wrapping up any time soon.
