ARN has been slapped with a second lawsuit as Jackie Henderson commenced legal proceedings against the media giant.
The claim, confirmed in an ASX announcement today, comes just one week after her longtime co-host Kyle Sandilands launched legal action against the company.
Both matters have been filed in the Federal Court against Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation (CBC), the ARN subsidiary that holds the KIIS 1065 licence.
The escalating legal battle follows the abrupt termination of both presenters’ contracts earlier this year, sending shockwaves through the Australian radio industry and raising questions about the future of one of the country’s most commercially successful breakfast shows.
Sandilands’ claim, announced to the ASX on 23 March, centres on allegations that his termination was invalid. He argues there was no serious misconduct or contractual breach, and that the decision was “unconscionable” under the Australian Consumer Law. He is seeking to be reinstated and paid under the terms of his agreement.
Speaking outside court at the time, Sandilands said he had “mortgages to pay like everyone else”—despite widely reported estimates placing his property portfolio north of $20 million.
Henderson’s claim, however, takes a markedly different legal approach.
According to the ASX filing, she alleges her contract termination constituted “adverse action” under the Fair Work Act 2009. Central to her case is a formal complaint letter sent to CBC, in which she stated she could no longer work with Sandilands and raised concerns relating to psychosocial health, safety, and alleged bullying.
The claim argues that this complaint represented the exercise—or proposed exercise—of workplace rights, and that her contract was terminated because of it, in alleged breach of Section 340 of the Act.
That provision protects workers from adverse action taken because they have exercised, or intend to exercise, workplace rights, including those relating to health and safety.
Henderson is also alleging that ARN’s ASX announcement on 3 March contained misleading or deceptive statements under the Australian Consumer Law. She is seeking at least $82.25 million in compensation, along with penalties, interest, and costs.
Michael Byrnes, partner in employment, workplace relations and WHS at Swaab, said the case could hinge on whether Henderson’s complaints are deemed a legitimate exercise of workplace rights.
“The Fair Work Act contains protections for workers who exercise workplace rights, including those relating to work health and safety,” Byrnes said.
“On the face of it – and without hearing ARN’s side – Jackie appears to have an argument with some merit. If she was unable to continue working due to psychosocial safety concerns, and her engagement was terminated in those circumstances, that complicates matters for ARN.”
He added that while Henderson was not technically an employee, she may still be protected under workplace health and safety laws, which can constitute a “workplace right” under the Act.
The contrast between the two claims is also notable. While Sandilands is seeking reinstatement, Henderson’s case is focused on financial compensation and penalties.
ARN has disputed both sets of allegations and confirmed it intends to vigorously defend the proceedings.
The twin lawsuits mark a significant escalation in the fallout from the KIIS 1065 shake-up—one that B&T understands could have broader implications for talent contracts, workplace protections, and governance across Australia’s media sector.
