Jackie O Henderson’s Case – Possibly the Largest General Protection Claim in History?

Last Updated on 10/04/2026 by Damin Murdock

Jackie O Henderson (Henderson) and her company Henderson Media Pty Ltd (Henderson Media) have issued legal proceedings against the Commonwealth Broadcasting Corporation Pty Ltd (CBC) and ARN Media Ltd (ARN). ARN is the ultimately holding company of CBC.

Background Facts

It is alleged by Henderson and Henderson Media that Henderson Media entered into a Broadcast Services Agreement (the Agreement) with CBC where Henderson Media was an independent contractor, and Henderson was an employee of Henderson Media. The material terms of the Agreement were that Henderson Media and Henderson would provide CBC with the program services for the ARN breakfast show presented by Henderson and Kyle Sandilands (Sandilands), known as the ‘Kyle and Jackie O Show’.

It is alleged that Henderson had made complaints to CBC about offensive and degrading comments on-air made by Sandilands from August to September 2025, and that on 20 February 2026, Sandilands made further comments on air about Henderson.

It is further alleged that CBC did not intervene or stop Sandiland’s conduct and that Henderson sent text messages to CBC on 21 February 2026 about the conduct. Further, Henderson’s lawyers wrote to CBC and ARN on 26 February 2026, outlining the previous conduct and alleged that it was bullying, and that CBC and ARN had certain obligations under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) (WHS Act) to provide a safe working environment.

Finally, it is alleged by Henderson that by her lawyer’s letter sent to CBC and ARN on 26 February 2026, Henderson exercised her workplace right within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FWA), and on 3 March 2026, CBC’s lawyers responded, which Henderson claims was an act of repudiation, repudiating the Agreement, and taking adverse action against Henderson within the meaning of section 342(1), Item 3(a) of the FWA.

Henderson is now claiming loss of the fees payable under the Agreement ($82,250,000 plus GST); loss of opportunity to earn a share in the revenue as per the Agreement; damage to Henderson’s reputation, career and professional standing; and damages for Henderson’s pain, suffering, hurt, humiliation and distress.

Henderson is also claiming breach of the Agreement and misleading and deceptive conduct.

General Protections

Relevantly:

• Pursuant to s 340(1) of the FWA, a person must not take adverse action against another because the other has a workplace right or has, or has not, exercised a workplace right.
• Pursuant to s 341 of the FWA, a person has a workplace right if the person is entitled to the benefit of a workplace law.
• Pursuant to s 342 of the FWA, an adverse action occurs in various circumstances, and extends to, for instance, adverse action taken by (1) employer against an employee (2) a prospective employer against a prospective employee, and (3) a principal who has entered into a contract for services with an independent contractor against the independent contractor, or a persons employed or engaged by the independent contractor.

It is under s 342(1) in Item 3 of the FWA which has been pleaded and applies in this case. That is, Henderson has alleged that CBC has entered into the Agreement with Henderson Media, and Henderson is an employee of Henderson Media. Further, it is alleged that CBC has taken adverse action by terminating the Agreement, because of Henderson Media and/or Henderson exercising a workplace right to operate in a safe working environment free from bullying which is a workplace right under the WHS Act.

Unlike unfair dismissal claims under the FWA where damages are limited to 26 weeks pay of an employee’s salary, general protection claims do not have a limitation.

What do Past Cases Say?

In Leggett v Hawkesbury Race Club Limited (No 4), the applicant was awarded $212,250 for pain and suffering under s 545(1) and 2(b) of the FWA, and the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant’s past and further weekly income up to the age of 67 plus superannuation and interest, less 17.5% for vicissitudes and any payments made under Workers Compensation Act. Ultimately, the decision resulted in a decision of $2.25 million, with $1.77 million resulting from the general protection claim under the FWA.

In Roohizadegan v Technology One Ltd (No 6) [2025] FCA 1619, the applicant was originally seeking $55 million on compensation for being wrongfully dismissed because of a psychological injury sustained at work. In 2019, the initial trial judge awarded the applicant $5.2 million, but on appeal, a re-trial was ordered, and the applicant was unsuccessful in his claim as it was ultimately determined that the applicant was dismissed for performance reasons, and not because of any exercise of a workplace right.

Key Take Aways

Having consideration to the Henderson case here are some key take aways

General protection claims are not only between employee and employee, but extends to contractors and prospective employees

General protections do not have limitations on damages

Successful general protection claims can result in damages for loss of past and future lost income, pain and suffering, loss of opportunities and civil penalties.

If you believe you are entitled to bring a general protection claim, or if you are now defending a possible claim, feel free to contact Damin Murdock at Leo Lawyers via our website, on (02) 8201 0051 or at office@leolawyers.com.au. Further, if you liked this article, please subscribe to our newsletter via our Website, and subscribe to our YouTube, LinkedIn, Facebook and Instagram. If you liked this article or video, please also give us a favourable Google Review.

DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice and is general information only. You should not rely upon the information contained in this article and if you require specific legal advice, please contact us.