The relationship between showbusiness duos often comes to an acrimonious end. Martin and Lewis split at the height of their fame, with a brief rapprochement brokered by Frank Sinatra after 20 years in which they did not speak to each other. Simon and Garfunkel have had a fractious alliance, even splitting a first time when they were young before they had any success. Abbott and Costello ended in rancour over money. The volatility of Buckingham and Nicks has been well documented in their own music. Before the Gallagher brothers, the Everly Brothers were the quintessential dysfunctional musical siblings.
The split between radio duo Kyle Sandilands and Jackie ‘O’ Henderson (known as Jackie O) has generated significant media attention and analysis. Not only is it a story of media and cultural interest but, given the real possibility of legal action being taken by one or both of them in relation to their reported 10 year, $10 million per year contracts, there has also been discussion of the legal arguments that they might make, or to which they may need to respond, in litigating a claim.
There are some observations made about these prospective claims below but before they are considered there are three key qualifications to bear in mind:
- This article is written without the benefit of seeing the relevant contracts for services between ARN Media Limited (ARN) and the respective service companies of Kyle and Jackie O (namely Quasar Media Services Pty Ltd (Quasar Media) and Henderson Media Pty Ltd (Henderson Media)). Mind you, that is true of all that has been published to date.
- It is based on information publicly available, including the events during the broadcast of 20 February 2026 (the incident that is said to have been the catalyst for the split) and, significantly, the statement to the ASX by ARN as part of its continuous disclosure obligations (Market Statement).
- As far as can be determined, including from the Market Statement, neither Kyle nor Jackie O were employees of ARN. Rather, they provided their services through their corporate entities, Quasar Media and Henderson Media. While that should be noted it may not significantly alter the analysis. Modern workplace relations law encompasses the various models through which personal services are provided, including as independent contractors.
Some of the issues and arguments that have been raised, and observations in relation to them, are set out below.
Kyle’s “Serious Misconduct”
The Market Statement includes the following:
“ARN has also provided written notice to Mr Kyle Sandilands and Quasar Media Services Pty Ltd (Quasar Media) stating that it considers that Mr Sandilands’ behaviour during the show on 20 February 2026 is an act of serious misconduct which is in breach of ARN’s services agreement with Quasar Media, under which Mr Sandilands presents the Kyle and Jackie O show. Mr Sandilands has been given 14 days to remedy this breach. If it is not remedied, ARN will terminate the services agreement with Quasar Media, and in that event Mr Sandilands will cease to present the Kyle and Jackie O show. During the 14 day period, Mr Sandilands will not take part in the show.”
So, in the Market Statement, ARN clearly evinces an intention to rely upon the behaviour of Kyle during the show on 20 February 2026 as the basis for terminating its contract with Quasar Media on the ground of serious misconduct.
Business as Usual
There is one significant hurdle ARN might face in terminating on this ground. The behaviour of Kyle was known on 20 February 2026. It was broadcast for all to hear. It was not a matter that was only known to management sometime later. Indeed, the relevant part of the broadcast was not included in the usual podcast of the program made available after the live show ends. This reflects an awareness of a problem. Notwithstanding this, Kyle was allowed back on air on the following weekday (the Monday after the Friday of the incident) and remained on air presenting the program (without Jackie O) on six occasions until the suspension announced in the Market Statement. The only day between the incident and the Market Statement Kyle did not present the show was on the following Thursday when he was absent due to illness.
It raises this question – if the behaviour was so serious as to potentially warrant the termination of the contract, then why was he allowed back on air? In employment law, serious misconduct is generally considered to be deliberate behaviour inconsistent with the continuation of the employment relationship. It is incompatible with this notion to keep an employee in situ after the relevant conduct has occurred. To address this, employees suspected of having engaged in such conduct are usually suspended in order for any investigations to be conducted and decisions made. While there might be specific clauses in Kyle’s contract that contemplates a different approach being taken, on the face of it, it appears to be a factor that works in his favour in defending his position.
Objective Seriousness
Of course, it may well be that the full effect the behaviour had on Jackie O was not known until after the Tuesday program (the last time Kyle appeared on air) and before the Market Statement (and the suspension of Kyle it announced). While the distress of Jackie O (which was obviously apparent from the broadcast on the day of the incident) will likely be a relevant factor, it is not determinative – it is the “objective seriousness” of Kyle’s conduct that is going to be a key consideration.
Without excusing the behaviour of Kyle, who was ventilating a criticism of his radio partner in pointed terms which would have been better made off air, he might seek to argue that the admonishment was objectively mild (no shouting or abusive expletives) and consistent with what had been said to Jackie O and broadcast previously. Indeed, there was a remarkably similar exchange that occurred between the pair in May 2025, initially off air but recorded, which was then subsequently broadcast. It was part of the cut and thrust of the program that Kyle and Jackie O would sometimes squabble on air, seen as lending authenticity or a “fly on the wall” quality to the program. Kyle’s behaviour needs to be considered against that backdrop.
Kyle the “Shock Jock”
There is a line of argument that Jackie O should not be shocked that she is subject to shocking comments from a “shock jock” (Kyle) and that gives him a strong defence. There is a subtle but important difference between the usual “shock jock” commentary from Kyle and this incident – “shock jock” commentary is ordinarily directed at public figures or events outside the show – this incident was directed at a co-worker on the program, and as such, is more a matter of workplace respect and safety. The alleged serious misconduct in this case is not an issue of profanity or sexualised content where Kyle may be able to make better use of the “shock jock” defence. Being a “shock jock” does not, of itself, give rise to a different standard by which you can treat colleagues. Indeed, there are some noted examples of media figures internationally with a “nice” on air persona who are ogres to staff behind the scenes, and vice versa.
This argument that Kyle is a “shock jock” also seems to the basis for the raising of a “Volenti non fit injuria” (to a willing person, injury is not done) argument – essentially that by appearing on the program Jackie O accepted the risk of being subject to whatever it is Kyle might say. While the nature of the program and previous events might be relevant to a contextual assessment of the objective seriousness of the conduct, the notion that Jackie O has in any way consented to being subject to any abusive or unsafe conduct herself is likely to be given short shrift.
The Censors
The Kyle and Jackie O show has long had censors whose apparent role is to prevent inappropriate content from going to air. They were implemented after various regulatory breaches. One argument that has been raised is that Kyle could not have engaged in serious misconduct because the censors allowed the incident to go to air – in doing so, the censors effectively gave permission from ARN for it to happen. Noting that the precise scope of the role of the censors is unclear, it is likely their role is confined to stopping profane, gratuitously sexualised or defamatory material going to air, to prevent further breaches of broadcasting standards. The crux of the issue arising from the incident is not broadcast standards but treatment of a colleague. There did not appear to be anything in the broadcast that breached broadcasting standards and therefore required the intervention of the censors. It is unlikely the role of the censors extends to being workplace mediators. On this basis it does not appear to be a particularly strong argument.
Kyle’s Indemnity
Commenting on a contract without seeing its terms is obviously something of a fool’s errand. That said, it has been reported the Quasar Media contract has a term indemnifying Kyle for anything he says on air. Such clauses are often seen in media contracts to provide comfort for broadcasters that they will be supported and indemnified in the event of defamation or regulatory proceedings. The reports suggest it is unusually broad to give Kyle freedom of expression. As noted above, however, the issue here is of a different kind – the treatment of a colleague. While the exchange between Kyle and Jackie O was broadcast, it seems unlikely the indemnity clause could be invoked as a “get out of jail free card” for absolutely anything said or done to a colleague by Kyle provided it was done on air.
The Mystery of Jackie O
In relation to Jackie O, the Market Statement contained the following:
“ARN Media Limited [ASX: A1N] announces that Ms Jacqueline Henderson has given notice that she “cannot continue to work with Mr Kyle Sandilands.” Accordingly, ARN has terminated the services agreement with Henderson Media Pty Ltd, under which Ms Henderson presents the Kyle and Jackie O show. Ms Henderson will cease to present the Kyle and Jackie O show. ARN has also offered to Ms Henderson the possibility of an alternative show on the ARN network.”
Initially, it was difficult to reconcile the narrative in the media, that Jackie O had resigned and effectively walked away from her contract, with the reference in the Market Statement to ARN terminating the agreement with her services company, Henderson Media. Approximately 3 days after the Market Statement, Jackie O issued her own statement, confirming that she did not resign – she had her contract terminated. This suggested that ARN was not only potentially in dispute with Kyle (and Quasar Media) but Jackie O as well (and Henderson Media). The statement from Jackie O referred to her examining legal options.
The conclusion to be drawn from the Market Statement is that the termination of the Henderson Media contract by ARN is a consequence of Jackie O giving notice “she cannot continue to work with Mr Kyle Sandilands”. Without a review of the contract and full details of what has occurred behind the scenes the precise basis upon which termination was effected by ARN is in the realm of speculation (albeit informed by experience of similar scenarios) and that is what follows.
One possibility is that the statement by Jackie O that she can no longer work with Kyle was a repudiation of the Henderson Media contract, because she was either unable or unwilling to continue to provide services contemplated by the contract, and ARN then accepted that repudiation and terminated the agreement. Another possibility is that there was a specific clause in the contract that could be invoked by ARN to terminate in circumstances where the relationship between Kyle and Jackie O broke down. This does not, however, appear to be the case, given the statement made by Jackie O, which hints at something messier (such as a dispute about repudiation), and the reliance by ARN on “serious misconduct” to potentially terminate Kyle’s contract, which might not be needed if a cleaner, less contentious path was also available in his agreement in the event of a relationship breakdown between Jackie O and him.
Safety and Bullying
There have been some quotes from media insiders urging Jackie O to take legal action for “bullying” or “breach of safety”. While Jackie O will no doubt take her own advice about such matters, there are a few brief general observations that can be made.
First, in relation to bullying, stop bullying orders from the Fair Work Commission can only be sought by those still in the workplace. Once the employment or engagement comes to an end, so does the risk of workplace bullying, meaning such orders cannot be sought. It might have theoretically been an option to explore had Jackie O’s contract not been terminated.
There is no specific “bullying” cause of action that can be used to sue for damages. Such matters are usually under the broader umbrella of breach of duty of care and usually involve significant medically established psychiatric impact resulting from the alleged conduct. The bar is very high.
Second, in relation to safety and specifically any asserted breaches of the Work Health and Safety Act, including any alleged failure to eliminate or minimise psychosocial hazards, they are matters to be prosecuted by the relevant authority (SafeWork NSW) rather than forming the basis for a civil claim.
That said, these are issues that may be raised by Jackie O in a dispute about any asserted repudiation of the Henderson Media contract.
Interesting Times
Given the fluid and dynamic nature of the situation, almost anything is possible. In terms of next events it will be interesting to see if ARN proceeds to terminate Kyle’s contract for serious misconduct and what then follows. Given the reported amounts of money involved in the Quasar Media and Henderson Media contracts exceeds the entire market capitalisation of ARN, a commercial settlement that meets the needs of all parties might not be easy to achieve. This may turn out to be a workplace relations law case for the ages, one of interest even to those who have never listened to a minute of the now defunct Kyle & Jackie O show.
