Michael Byrnes

She didn't repudiate her contract.

She was simply looking for an alternative show as contemplated by her contract.

She also alleges that ARN have engaged in breaches of the Fair Work Act.

and also breaches of Australian consumer law arising from misrepresentations in a statement to the market.

So there's a lot involved there, Tash, but that's the story so far.

ARN this week filed their defences to both claims ahead of the case management hearing in both matters today.

They are separate matters, but the court has combined them at this stage and it does look like they're going to be heard together.

Yes, so let me deal with the counterclaim first.

They are suing both Jackie O, or Jackie Henderson, and Kyle.

And so what ARN is saying is that both of them are in breach of the services agreements.

And if you breach a contract, as you know, you're liable for damages.

And so ARN is saying, Kyle and Jackie O owe us the profits, the revenues, the amounts we would have earned over the life of the contract, which the remaining period or duration of the contract is about eight and a half years, eight and three quarter years, something like that.

So they owe us for the profits we would have made, the revenue we would have made,

over that period.

So that's the cross-claim.

In terms of the defence, for Kyle's matter, and there's been a lot of talk about this, they're saying that Kyle engaged in a course of misconduct.

And that was primarily in the way that he was treating Jackie.

Firstly, on February 20, that particular exchange, and then previous exchanges about which Jackie had complained in August and September.

They also say in their defence that Kyle should not be reinstated.

That should not be a remedy on the table for Kyle because of conduct engaged in by Kyle in relation to management.