Kyle Sandilands says “the truth will raise its head” during a court case against his former employer, as a Sydney judge considers whether proceedings brought by his former co-host, Jackie ‘O’ Henderson, should be heard together.
Sandilands and Henderson have separately launched legal proceedings following the termination of their $100 million contracts with Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).
It came after the duo had an on-air row in February, which led to Henderson refusing to work with her co-host of more than two decades.
The stars were set to earn a combined $200 million over 10 years. (Instagram: @jackieo_official)
Sandilands’s legal team argues the termination of his contract was invalid and his behaviour didn’t amount to serious conduct, while Henderson’s lawyers say she had complained about his conduct six months before the public falling out, as part of a wrongful termination claim.
CBC, the licence holder for radio station KIIS FM, where they co-hosted The Kyle and Jackie O Show, is fighting back with counter claims against the pair, seeking damages for breach of contract, losses in profit and advertising revenue, and legal costs.
One of the key questions during Friday’s hearing in the Federal Court in Sydney was whether the cases should be heard at the same time.
Five hearing days in June had already been provisionally reserved for the Sandilands proceedings.
Kyle Sandilands and Jackie “O” Henderson are being sued in a counter claim. (Instagram: @jackieo_official)
‘No fun today’: Kyle addresses media scrum
As he arrived, Sandilands said Friday’s court listing was procedural: “No fun today.”
He told journalists he was not nervous about the case, which he described as “pretty ugly”.
“If you know how these procedures work, there’s strategy and then there’s truth and once we get inside and we get all the answers out, the truth will raise its head.”
Asked what message he had for the network’s parent company, ARN Media, Sandilands replied: “Put me back on the radio and let’s get the share price back up.”
Kyle Sandilands described the case as “pretty ugly”. (ABC News: Abubakr Sajid)
Henderson did not attend court and Sandilands said he had not spoken to her.
Inside court, Sandilands’s lawyers said they had a proper claim for expedition and should not be disadvantaged by another “camp” taking longer.
Scott Robertson SC, representing Sandilands, told the judge it appeared likely his client would admit to the core conduct — in that he said particular things — through the tendering of transcripts and audio.
But the court will need to consider how those kinds of communications should be characterised.
Lawsuit ‘not just about money’
While there may be overlap between the Sandilands and Henderson proceedings, Mr Robertson said there would need to be separate legal debates for the purposes of Sandilands’s contract in one case, and for the purposes of the Fair Work Act in another.
“There’s a contract question and there’s a statutory question,” he told the judge.
Mr Robertson said his client’s contract was “very curious” and “special” because of an immunity it contained in relation to his conduct — which was “desired … and monetised”, the evidence will demonstrate.
“To put it bluntly, if you buy Kyle you get Kyle,” he said.
Mr Robertson pressed for the June hearing to go ahead.
“This is not a case that’s not just about money, Mr Sandilands wants to get back before the microphone,” he said.
One of the key questions during the hearing was whether the cases should be heard at the same time. (AAP: Bianca de Marchi)
Vanja Bulut, representing Henderson, said the judge was in a “somewhat invidious position” of having three parties arguing different things in terms of the overlap of issues.
She said there was a “real divergence” when it came to considering whether the Henderson complaint about Sandilands’s behaviour amounted to the exercise of a workplace right.
Ms Bulut told the court there was “insufficient overlap” for the matters to be heard together.
She also suggested there was no reason why the cross claim couldn’t be “siphoned off” and dealt with after the two other cases are dealt with.
Overlap of cases could cause ‘undesirable’ issues
Tom Blackburn SC, representing ARN, said the overlap of the issues between the cases may cause “undesirable” problems.
He said the Henderson parties would assert that incidents amount to workplace bullying, were offensive and degrading, while ARN’s case is that the incidents amounted to serious misconduct.
Mr Blackburn said in the Fair Work claim, his clients had the reverse onus of demonstrating that the action taken was not taken because Henderson exercised a workplace right.
The court would need to consider whether the Henderson complaint letter amounted to a clear repudiation, he said.
Justice Angus Stewart decided both proceedings should be placed on a “common timetable” in preparation for trial, and that the June dates provisionally reserved should be vacated.
He listed both cases for trial, reserving 10 days from October 12, but left open the question of whether they will be heard together or separately.
As he left, Sandilands hit back at a point raised by Henderson’s barrister about having the cases heard together, which would place them in the same enclosed space.
“They say they don’t want to be in the same courtroom, that’s their legal strategy, we have a different strategy,” he said.
“Just don’t believe the bullshit that you hear and read, wait til you see what comes out of the court.”
Asked whether he was disappointed at the change in timetable potentially meaning he would not be back on air until October, Sandilands replied: “That’s not necessarily true.”
“There are other options to work, it’s not the only radio station in the world.”