Full Breakdown
Court Battle Over 123 Podcast Ownership
By Drooid · · How we work
Core Event
The New South Wales Supreme Court is hearing a dispute between former Nine Today host Karl Stefanovic (52) and podcast producer Keshnee Ibrahim (36) over the future of their joint venture, 123 Podcast Pty Ltd (trading as the 123 Podcast Unit Trust). Both parties own 45 percent stakes in the company that produces *The Karl Stefanovic Show*. On the day of the hearing, Justice David Hammerschlag outlined two possible outcomes: an equal-basis winding-up with a liquidator, or a buy-out of Ibrahim’s shares by Stefanovic. The court has ordered the parties to agree on an independent valuer and set a further hearing for 13 October.
Background & Context
The podcast launched earlier in 2026 and was placed on hiatus on 24 August after Stefanovic interviewed a de-ageing expert. The pause followed a controversial interview with far-right UK activist Stephen Yaxley Lennon (known as Tommy Robinson), which led Nine Entertainment to terminate Stefanovic’s role as Today host. The fallout intensified the partnership strain, prompting Ibrahim to file an urgent application to defer a directors’ meeting originally scheduled for 18 September, citing fear of removal as a director.
Data & Statistics
- Ownership: Stefanovic 45 % | Ibrahim 45 % (remaining 10 % held by other parties).
- YouTube performance: the show has accumulated roughly 23 million total views (Guardian) and 200 thousand subscribers.
- Timeline of key dates:
- 7 August – Stefanovic requested that any valuation be based on the company’s value before this date.
- 24 August – Podcast placed on hiatus.
- 18 September – Scheduled directors’ meeting deferred by Ibrahim’s application.
- 13 October – Next court hearing.
Official Statements & Responses
Justice Hammerschlag indicated that the valuation issue hinges on whether alleged oppressive conduct by Stefanovic affected the company’s worth. He noted that the parties must now select an independent valuer and submit their figures. Stefanovic’s counsel, Samuel Murray, argued that the 7 August benchmark is critical because it precedes the conduct complained about, and therefore any valuation should reflect the pre-conflict value. Ibrahim’s side maintains that the company’s operation after that date has been detrimental to her interests, though Stefanovic disputes the oppression claim.
Verbatim Quotes
- “Then the question just becomes – what’s the value for the buyout?” — Show. Justice David Hammerschlag
- “The 7 August date is important because [it] is before the majority of the conduct that’s complained about actually occurs,” — Samuel Murray, his lawyer
- “There’s going to be a buyout,” — Show. Justice David Hammerschlag
- “This is obviously something that, if it can be settled, it should be settled,” — Show. Justice David Hammerschlag
What's Next
The court has set a further hearing for 13 October to consider the independent valuation and determine whether a buy-out will proceed or the company will be wound up. Both parties are expected to submit their valuation proposals before that date.