Kyle Sandilands argues Jackie O case should not delay Federal Court bid for KIIS FM reinstatement

Kyle Sandilands has taken a swipe at his former network as he arrived at court, urging them to, “Put me back on the radio, let’s get the share price back up.”

The axed KIIS FM star was met by a large media scrum when he arrived at the Federal Court in Sydney in a black Rolls Royce on Friday morning.

At one point, he also warned a photographer who was walking backwards towards a taped-off area, saying “I’m always saving one of your guys from near death.”

Inside court, his barrister Scott Robertson SC made clear Sandilands’ priority was returning to air and not simply securing a financial payout.

“This is not a case that’s just about money,” Mr Robertson told the court.

“Mr Sandilands wants to get back before the microphone.”

Federal Court Justice Angus Stewart indicated the key issue for Friday’s hearing was how the two cases should be managed, including whether they should be heard together.

The court heard Sandilands was pushing for an expedited hearing as early as June, arguing the longer he remained off air, the greater the damage to his audience connection and prospects of reinstatement.

His barrister said the case should not be delayed by Jackie “O” Henderson’s separate proceedings, warning his client should not be prejudiced if the two matters were run together and slowed down.

At the heart of Sandilands’ claim is an argument that his conduct – including the on-air clash that led to his sacking – did not amount to serious misconduct under his contract.

In a striking submission, his barrister said the nature of his behaviour was part of the deal.

“If you buy Kyle, you get Kyle,” he said.

He also argued the case was fundamentally different from traditional employment disputes.

“This is not the opera singer who doesn’t want to sing,” he said.

“This is the broadcaster and performer who wants to get behind the microphone ASAP.”

The court heard Sandilands’ legal team was prepared to move quickly, proposing pleadings be finalised by April 29 and evidence filed by May 1, ahead of a further hearing in early May to determine whether a June trial could proceed.

But Henderson’s barrister pushed back, telling the court the two cases involved fundamentally different legal questions and should not be rushed together.

She said while there was some overlap in the underlying conduct, the “facts in issue” in each case were very different.

In Henderson’s case, the alleged bullying, complaint and underlying conduct were largely admitted, with the dispute instead turning on whether her complaint amounted to the exercise of a workplace right under the Fair Work Act and whether that led to her termination.

By contrast, Sandilands’ case centres on whether his conduct amounted to serious misconduct under his contract.

The court heard key evidence in Henderson’s case would focus on the subjective motivations of decision-makers at ARN, including who made the decision to terminate her contract and why – issues not relevant to Sandilands’ contractual claim.

Henderson’s barrister also pointed to overlap in the cross-claims, with ARN alleging both presenters breached their contracts and are liable for the same losses – including lost advertising revenue after the show was axed.

ARN’s barrister argued the two cases should be heard together because there was a major risk of inconsistent findings if they were split.

He said the court would need to examine and characterise the same underlying conduct in both cases, including whether Sandilands’ behaviour amounted to serious misconduct and whether it caused serious or imminent risk to Henderson’s health and safety.

ARN also argued Henderson’s medical evidence would be relevant not only to her damages claim, but to ARN’s defence of its decision to sack Sandilands.

Henderson’s lawyer said hearing the matters together would effectively force her client into a broader case involving the person she had complained about and who she alleges caused her psychological harm.

But ARN argued separating the matters could create serious problems, including contradictory findings about Henderson’s complaint letter, whether her contract was validly terminated and whether Sandilands’ conduct justified his sacking.

Sandilands and Henderson are both suing ARN and its subsidiary Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation after their 10-year, $100 million contracts were torn up following their on-air clash in February.

Henderson alleges she was subjected to “persistent and relentless bullying” and left “psychologically unwell”, and is seeking up to $82 million.

ARN is counter-suing both presenters, seeking damages for breach of contract and lost advertising revenue.

More to come.