Kyle Sandilands has claimed that the termination of his lucrative KIIS FM deal was “unconscionable”.
In a concise statement filed in the Federal Court, Sandilands and his associated entities argue the broadcaster had no contractual grounds to terminate the agreement tied to “The Kyle and Jackie O Show”, despite alleging “serious misconduct” during a February broadcast.
At the centre of the filing is a direct rejection of that claim, with the applicants arguing the on-air exchange in question was consistent with the show’s long-established tone, style and “robust character” – a dynamic the broadcaster had explicitly acknowledged and endorsed in the deal.
According to the statement, the broadcast did not constitute “serious misconduct”, did not cause “serious and imminent injury” to the business, and did not breach any core obligations under the agreement.
The applicants also point to the broadcaster’s own oversight mechanisms, noting that the segment was monitored in real time by a designated censor and senior content executives, none of whom intervened or prevented its airing.
Taken together, they argue the contractual threshold required to trigger termination was never met.
A key plank of the claim centres on the fallout with co-host Jacqueline Henderson, whose refusal to continue presenting alongside Sandilands was cited by the broadcaster as the “serious and imminent injury” underpinning the termination.
Love Film & TV?
Get your daily dose of everything happening in music, film and TV in Australia and abroad.
However, the applicants argue that the outcome was effectively created by the broadcaster itself, which terminated Henderson’s contract, removing any realistic pathway for the situation to be resolved.
They further claim Sandilands was denied a genuine and reasonable opportunity to remedy the issue within the 14-day period required under the agreement.
Beyond the contractual dispute, the filing alleges the broadcaster engaged in unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.
Specifically, it claims the broadcaster required Sandilands and his company to resolve a co-host breakdown while simultaneously taking steps that made that outcome impossible – a contradiction that sits at the heart of the legal argument.
The deal, which runs from 2025 through to 2034, includes annual payments of $7.4 million, along with additional fees and licensing arrangements, with a total value exceeding $85 million over the term.
Sandilands and his co-applicants are seeking declarations that the termination is invalid, enforcement of the original agreements, and compensation for unpaid amounts and losses.
In an ASX statement, ARN Media confirmed the proceedings and said it intends to defend the claims.
“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, and that the termination was unconscionable under the Australian Consumer Law,” the statement read.
“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 judgment, and damages.”
ARN said it is too early to determine the financial impact of the proceedings.
From Mediaweek