Kyle Sandilands rocks up to court in Rolls-Royce, before bid for quick radio comeback hits legal brick wall

Kyle Sandilands rolled up to the Federal Court in a black Rolls-Royce, faced a wall of cameras and declared he could work with anyone but by lunchtime, his bid for a fast-tracked return to radio had effectively hit a wall.

The axed KIIS FM radio king’s push to urgently get back behind the microphone has been dealt a major blow, with Justice Angus Stewart listing his legal battle with ARN for a 10-day trial starting October 12.

The decision means Sandilands’ attempt to have the case heard sooner – and get back on air within weeks – is now off the table.

The courtroom drama followed a classic Sandilands arrival, with the broadcaster turning the Federal Court steps into a mini media event.

Patiently answering questions as he walked through a huge scrum, Sandilands insisted he was “not really nervous” about his financial losses or professional future.

When asked how ugly the legal battles would get, he replied: “It’s pretty ugly now”.

The 54-year-old revealed he had not spoken to Jackie “O” Henderson since the spectacular collapse of their long-running radio partnership.

“I haven’t spoken to Jackie, I haven’t spoken to any of the people,” he said.

But Sandilands made clear he was ready for the courtroom fight.

“I just want to get all the answers out,” he said.

“There’s strategy and then there’s truth — and once we get inside and get all the answers out, the truth will raise its head.”

Asked if he could work with his old boss again, he said he “can work with anyone”.

“It’s the media business,” he said. “One day you hate someone, the next day they’re your best friend.

“Put me back on the radio and let’s get the share price back on track.”

At one point, as a photographer almost fell while walking backwards, Kylie provided a moment of levity.

“I’m always saving one of you guys from near death,” he said.

Inside court, his barrister Scott Robertson SC argued the case was urgent because the longer Sandilands remained off air, the more damage he suffered.

“This is not a case that’s just about money. Mr Sandilands wants to get back before the microphone,” Mr Robertson said.

“This is not the opera singer who doesn’t want to sing. This is the broadcaster and performer who wants to get behind the microphone ASAP.”

In the line of the day, Mr Robertson told the court the entire point of Sandilands’ contract was his provocative on-air persona.

“Our short position in relation to the serious misconduct question generally is, to put it bluntly, if you buy Kyle, you get Kyle,” he said.

He said the evidence would demonstrate Sandilands’ conduct was “contractually designed” and monetised by ARN.

Mr Robertson said Sandilands may admit much of the alleged conduct occurred, because much of it was recorded, but the real fight would be over how that conduct should be legally characterised.

He said the court would have access to transcripts and audio, and told Justice Stewart the Kyle and Jackie O Show was so heavily recorded that “there was, as it were, Big Brother” capturing even off-air communications.

But ARN’s barrister Tom Blackburn SC savaged the bid for Sandilands’ reinstatement, saying the claim was “close to hopeless”.

He said the chance of a court ordering specific performance – effectively forcing ARN to put Sandilands back on air – was “vanishingly small”.

“I mean, it’s a hopeless situation, and it’s seriously put to the court that they’re likely to get an order or they might get an order requiring the parties to cooperate together again for the next nine years,” Mr Blackburn said.

“It’s close to hopeless in our submission.”

Mr Blackburn said there was no pleaded allegation that Sandilands was suffering loss because he was off air.

“We accept that there is some evidence that Mr Sandilands’ goodwill is ebbing away,” he said.

“But it’s irrelevant to any claim that is made in these proceedings.”

ARN also argued the two cases – Sandilands’ claim and Henderson’s separate lawsuit – should likely be heard together because of the risk of overlapping evidence and inconsistent findings.

“The Henderson parties say that these incidents amounted to workplace bullying,” Mr Blackburn said.

“They were offensive and degrading.

“They attacked her character, reputation, professional standing and her ability to perform her duties.

“And we essentially agree that they are a correct characterisation of that conduct, but we don’t expect Mr Sandilands to agree to that.

“Our case is that those incidents amounted to serious misconduct.”

Henderson did not attend her hearing but her barrister, Vanja Bulut, argued her client’s case was different because it centred on whether she exercised workplace rights under the Fair Work Act and whether ARN’s response was unlawful.

She told the court Henderson had not sued Sandilands personally and did not want to be forced into a larger case alongside him.

“My client’s preference is not to be in a closed-in closed space for weeks on end,” Ms Bulut said.

“Our claim is not against Mr Sandilands. It is against the ARN entities.”

Ms Bulut said hearing the cases together could force Henderson into proceedings involving “the very person against whom she complained” and who she says caused significant psychological harm.

The court heard Henderson claims to have suffered “a psychological injury with physical manifestations”.

Justice Stewart ultimately ordered the cases onto a common timetable and said both sides needed to “bite the bullet and just get on with it”.

The two cases were set down for a 10-day trial from October 12, with the question of whether they are heard together or separately to be revisited later.