The ongoing dispute involving radio personalities Kyle Sandilands (“Sandilands”) and Jacqueline Henderson (“Jackie O”) and ARN media (“ARN”) continues to evolve, with the commercial and litigation landscape shifting significantly following a settlement announced to ASX.

This Employment Update reflects the most recent developments, including the settlement with Sandilands and the continuation of Jackie O’s proceedings. The information below is based on publicly available reporting and allegations, court pleadings, and the ASX announcement, and allegations remain untested unless otherwise indicated.

The latest development: settlement reached

In a material update, ARN has confirmed that it will pay Sandilands more than $12 million to resolve his general protections and breach of contract claims, alongside additional commercial support valued at $1.5 million.

Key settlement terms reported include:

1. payment of $12.09 million to Sandilands, structured as $3 million upfront and the balance paid in monthly instalments over three years;
2. provision of $1.5 million in advertising support for his new independent media venture, with ARN entitled to a 19.9% revenue share of this new independent media venture over the same three year period (subject to thresholds and caps);
3. a contractual restraint preventing Sandilands from working with ARN’s direct competitors until March next year;
4. settlement of Sandilands claims against ARN and ARN’s counter claims against Sandilands.

The settlement follows the dispute between the two parties, where it was alleged that Sandilands engaged in repeated on-air conduct that formed part of escalating tensions within the KIIS FM breakfast program. ARN contended his conduct contributed to a breakdown in the working relationship and amounted to serious misconduct, justifying termination. He disputed that characterisation and pursued claims arising out of the termination, which have now been resolved as discussed above.

The dispute in a nutshell

The dispute arises from an alleged pattern of escalating on-air conflict between the co-hosts, culminating in a breakdown of their working relationship. Court documents reportedly filed on behalf of Jackie O allege that, from at least August 2025, she made repeated complaints to senior management about Kyle’s conduct during broadcasts, including comments characterised as offensive, degrading or personally directed. These incidents are said to have included on-air criticisms of her personal life and character, at times leading to visible tension and her leaving the studio mid-broadcast.

The tension came to a head on or about 20 February 2026, during a segment involving astrology, in which Sandilands allegedly made a series of remarks questioning Jackie O’s competence and describing her as “unworkable” and “off with the fairies”. Jackie O responded on-air before leaving the studio and not returning. In the immediate aftermath, she reportedly lodged formal complaints, asserted she could no longer work with her colleague and raised concerns about the psychosocial safety of the workplace.

Following this, ARN moved to terminate its multi-year, multi-million-dollar services arrangements relating to the Kyle and Jackie O The arrangement has been widely reported as a significant long-term commercial agreement with an overall value often described in media coverage as exceeding $100 million. Following the final incident, ARN characterised the conduct as constituting serious misconduct and issued a notice to Kyle Sandilands and Quasar Media Services Pty Ltd (“Quasar Media”) alleging breach of contract and providing a short remediation period before termination. Quasar Media is the entity in which Sandilands was engaged through a services agreement between ARN and Quasar Media.

In the aftermath, Jackie O ceased her involvement in the program. ARN is reported to have confirmed the end of her engagement in circumstances understood to involve an inability or unwillingness to continue working with her co-host, alongside alternative programming arrangements being considered.

What has emerged since is a layered dispute involving separate but interconnected claims and issues arising from the breakdown of the working relationship, including:

1. Wrongful termination and alleged repudiation of contract by Sandilands;
2. Adverse action and general protection type claims (under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“FWA”)) by Hendersen;
3. Psychosocial safety allegations by Hendersen; and
4. Alleged commercial loss arising from the breakdown of the working relationship by ARN.

Legal framing: no longer just a termination dispute

Although the originating events arose in a live broadcast context, the legal issues now extend well beyond whether termination was justified.

The dispute involves established employment and contract law concepts including serious misconduct, repudiation, affirmation of contractual obligations after an alleged breach and procedural fairness. It also raises statutory considerations under the FWA, particularly in relation to adverse action provisions, alongside evolving work health and safety obligations concerning psychosocial risk.

Jackie ‘O’s claim continues

Jackie O alleges she was subjected to on-air and workplace bullying conduct that created an unsafe psychosocial working environment. She contends she raised complaints about this conduct, and in the proceedings she commenced, she relied on workplace rights protections under the FWA, and alleges that adverse action was taken against her in response to making those complaints. Her claims against ARN remain ongoing and are yet to be determined.

Prior knowledge and escalation of risk

It has been reported in media commentary (and not independently verified in filed pleadings) that concerns or complaints regarding workplace tension between the presenters were raised before the February 2026 incident.

If established on evidence, prior knowledge (by ARN) of escalating interpersonal conflict may be relevant to ARN’s defence of Jackie O’s proceedings, including:

1. Whether psychosocial risks were reasonably foreseeable;
2. Whether appropriate risk controls were implemented; and
3. Whether termination by ARN was a proportionate or consistent response.

It may also complicate reliance by ARN on the “serious misconduct” characterisation of Sandilands’ actions, if similar conduct was previously tolerated or managed without formal intervention.

Procedural fairness and serious misconduct

The dispute raises familiar employment law issues in termination decisions regarding procedural fairness and whether the disciplinary outcome of termination was a disproportionate response to the conduct.

Key considerations include whether:

1. A proper investigation occurred before termination decisions were made.
2. The affected parties were given a meaningful opportunity to respond to the allegations; and
3. Interim measures (such as suspension or stand down) were considered before termination.

Even where serious misconduct is alleged, employers remain required to adopt a procedurally fair process before termination, including providing the affected person with an opportunity to respond, however, particular circumstances may justify immediate action (for example, suspension whilst a matter is investigated)..

Continued engagement of an employee, after knowledge of alleged misconduct, may also raise issues of the conduct being condoned or inconsistency in the employer’s position.

Breakdown of working relationships as a breach

A notable feature of the dispute, as reported, is the role of the breakdown of the working relationship itself, in the broader legal and commercial narrative.

In personality-driven media arrangements, it may be argued that:

1. Co-hosts’ compatibility is central to contractual performance;
2. Cooperation is an implied or expressed term of the contract; and
3. Breakdown of the relationship or compatibility may have direct commercial consequences for the employer.

However, attributing legal responsibility for the breakdown of the relationship is a complex and relatively underdeveloped area in Australian employment and contract law, particularly where causation is contested or the breakdown contributed to by both parties.

Psychosocial safety considerations

The dispute also reflects the increasing relevance of psychosocial safety obligations under Australian work health and safety legislation.

Employers are required to identify and manage risks associated with interpersonal workplace relationships, including bullying, conflict and psychological harm.

In this context:

1. Sustained interpersonal hostility may constitute a foreseeable hazard;
2. Failure to intervene may expose employers to risk of prosecution; and
3. Escalating conflict increases the importance of proactive risk management rather than a reactive response.

This represents a broader shift in regulatory focus on psychosocial safety from being reactive to individual incidents, to taking a proactive approach to systemic management of workplace relationships.

Employer takeaways

While the factual circumstances are unusual, several general principles emerge:

1. Consistency is critical – conduct of the same nature tolerated previously may be difficult to later characterise as serious misconduct.
2. Delay increases legal risk – continued engagement after awareness of similar misconduct without formal intervention may undermine termination justification.
3. Procedural fairness remains essential – regardless of seniority or public profile.
4. Psychosocial risk must be actively managed.
5. Counterclaims increase exposure – particularly where a counter claim made by an employer which incorporates prior knowledge, decision-making and internal risk management is placed under scrutiny.

Final thoughts

The dispute involving Kyle Sandilands and Jackie O illustrates the intersection of employment law, the risk allocation of a commercial agreement which relies on a working relationship between the employees and psychosocial safety obligations in the modern workplace environments.

The emergence of counterclaims and adverse action allegations reflects a broader trend in personality-driven commercial arrangements; interpersonal dynamics are not merely operational issues but may also form part of the legal and financial risk profile of that business.

At the same time, the dispute underscores the increasing expectation that employers proactively identify and manage psychosocial risks in real time, particularly where workplace relationships are central to business performance.

Ultimately, the dispute highlights the growing complexity of employment relationships where human dynamics, commercial value and statutory obligations intersect.

Before terminating an employee, we encourage you to seek legal advice from one of our specialist employment lawyers, who will be able to guide you through the process and help minimise your risk.