$100 Million Sacking: What the Kyle Sandilands Dispute Means for Every Employer
The legal battle between Kyle Sandilands and ARN Media is shaping up to be one of the most closely watched workplace disputes in Australia. After ARN terminated Sandilands’ $100 million services agreement on 17 March 2026, the broadcaster filed Federal Court proceedings alleging the termination was invalid and constituted a breach of contract. Although the dispute turns on a contractor arrangement, the principles of unlawful termination, breach of contract and serious misconduct that underpin it apply across every workplace in Australia.
Sandilands and Jackie “O” Henderson were engaged under a combined $200 million, 10-year deal signed in 2023 to present The Kyle and Jackie O Show on KIIS FM. On 20 February 2026, the pair had an on-air altercation, after which Henderson took over a week off air. On 3 March, ARN terminated Henderson’s contract after she indicated she could no longer work with Sandilands. ARN simultaneously issued Sandilands a written notice characterising his conduct as “serious misconduct” and gave him 14 days to remedy the breach. When that period expired, ARN terminated the agreement.
Sandilands has publicly alleged that ARN engineered the situation to escape a deal it could no longer afford, pointing to the network’s declining revenue and the show’s poor performance in Melbourne. He claims he apologised to Henderson, offered to return to air under various arrangements, and was refused each time.
Under common law, a contract cannot simply be torn up. Termination is only justified where the other party has committed a sufficiently serious breach, or where an express contractual right to terminate exists and has been followed. Where neither threshold is met, the termination itself becomes the breach, exposing the terminating party to a damages claim.
The central question in the Sandilands proceedings is whether a single on-air argument was capable of constituting “serious misconduct” under the services agreement, particularly where a business has historically tolerated that same conduct. In employment settings, the bar is just as high. Under regulation 1.07 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009, serious misconduct includes wilful or deliberate behaviour inconsistent with the continuation of the employment contract. Employers who terminate on the basis of misconduct that does not meet that threshold, risk unfair dismissal claims under s 394 or unlawful termination claims under s 772 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).
Because Sandilands was engaged as a contractor through Quasar Media, those Fair Work protections do not directly apply to him. But had this same scenario played out with an employee, the exposure would be significant. Where an employer characterises ordinary workplace conduct as “serious misconduct” to avoid notice periods, entitlements or contractual obligations, they leave themselves open to claims for unfair dismissal, underpayment or general protections under ss 772–773 of the Act.
Under s 19 of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU) owes a primary duty of care to every worker it influences or directs, including contractors. That duty extends to managing psychosocial hazards, which include workplace bullying. Where on-air conduct leaves a co-worker distressed, unable to return to work and ultimately separated from their role, it raises real questions about whether the PCBU took reasonably practicable steps to manage the risk. The fact that both Sandilands and Henderson were engaged as contractors rather than employees does not diminish that obligation.
Sandilands has also alleged the termination was unconscionable under section 21 of the Australian Consumer Law (Schedule 2, Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)). Section 22 sets out the factors a court may consider, including relative bargaining power, whether conditions were reasonably necessary, and whether the stronger party acted in good faith. Sandilands’ argument, that ARN created conditions making compliance impossible and then relied on that failure to terminate, raises questions about unconscionable conduct. This reflects that even where a termination clause exists, the manner of its enforcement can give rise to a separate cause of action.
After ongoing communications, ARN and Sandilands entered a binding settlement arrangement on 16 June 2026 as announced by ARN through the ASX. The agreement provides Sandilands with a cash settlement sum of $12.09 million, with $3 million payable in July 2026 and the balance in monthly instalments until June 2029.
ARN will also provide advertising services on ARN’s partner platforms with an estimated value of $1.5 million over the next three years. In return, the parties agreed that ARN will receive a net revenue share of 19.9% from Sandilands’ independent media opportunities, subject to the agreed upon revenue thresholds and caps.
A restraint will also be implemented, preventing Sandilands from engaging with any direct competitors of ARN for a maximum period of nine months from the date of settlement. The restraint is therefore due to expire in March 2027.
Separately, Henderson’s proceedings remain ongoing, with the matter currently listed for a 10 day hearing in October 2026.
Serious misconduct must meet a high threshold. A single incident which is consistent with an accepted pattern of behaviour may not be sufficient to justify termination, regardless of whether under a services agreement or an employment contract.
At Chamberlains Law Firm, we help businesses navigate the complexities of termination, contractor agreements and workplace compliance. Our workplace lawyers can review your contracts, advise on termination risks and represent you in disputes. Whether you need updated templates, compliance advice or support managing a workplace dispute, our Workplace Law Team is here to help.
Get clear, strategic advice on termination decisions, serious misconduct and workplace disputes, contact our Senior Associate Antonia Tahhan on 1300 676 823