Channel Nine denies explosive claim news boss promised Amber Sherlock would ‘be here forever’

by

In court, Channel Nine disputed claims made by presenter Amber Sherlock that she was unfairly dismissed when she was let go last November.

A seasoned journalist claims Fiona Dear, Nine’s Head of News, assured Sherlock her position was secure just a few months ago.

I’ve been following this case closely, and the latest filings with the Federal Court reveal that Sherlock and Dear actually met for coffee. Nine, the company involved, detailed this in their submitted documents yesterday.

Let’s clear up some confusion around what’s been reported. There’s been a claim that someone said to a presenter on the ‘Today’ show that they’d be with the network ‘forever,’ even suggesting they’d be ‘wheeled out’ eventually alongside another news anchor. However, those involved have firmly denied that conversation ever happened, so it’s important to know that’s just not true.

I learned from the court filings that during their coffee meeting, the applicant and Ms. Dear talked about potential publicity chances in Sydney. It seems like a key part of their conversation revolved around getting some exposure there.

The applicant, not Ms. Dear, was the only one who mentioned other employees appearing on the news, and they brought it up while asking for new professional photos.

Nine disputed Sherlock’s assertion that she was let go by the network due to her upcoming 50th birthday, which she celebrated on December 1st.

Nine argued in its defense that Sherlock lost her job as a weather presenter in Sydney because the position was no longer needed for their daily operations.

Nine Network has changed how they handle weather reports. Instead of hiring one dedicated weather presenter, they’ve divided the responsibility among several of their existing presenters as part of their usual on-air work.

These included Nine regulars, Sophie Walsh, 40, Maggie Raworth, 33, and Kate Creedon, 39. 

Sherlock claims in her lawsuit that her job responsibilities were given to television presenters who were significantly younger than her – at least ten years her junior.

According to Nine, after being laid off, Sherlock received job offers at several regional stations like Newcastle, Tamworth, and Port Macquarie. However, the network stated she wasn’t interested in taking a new position elsewhere.

Two days later, she learned through a Zoom call that there were no positions open in the Sydney office, and her job would be ending.

Nine’s records also disputed Sherlock’s statement that she was a respected and popular colleague in the news department.

According to her legal claim, Sherlock states that two months after meeting privately with Dear on November 10th, she was informed by news director Michael Best and someone from HR that her position was being eliminated.

She says she worked loyally and hard for Nine for 18 years, receiving public praise for her contributions, and believes her job loss wasn’t accidental, happening just three weeks before she turned 50.

According to the documents, Sherlock worked on Nine’s television news programs – including Today, Today Extra, and various Nine News bulletins – for nearly two decades, from 2007 to 2025, gaining significant on-air experience.

She gained experience writing and producing news and weather reports for television, and also worked as a field reporter. Colleagues described her as a friendly and valued member of the news team.

She’s asking the court to rule that Nine discriminated against her because of her age and gender, and that they violated the terms of her employment agreement.

Honestly, it’s outrageous! Sherlock deserves everything she’s asking for – a hundred thousand dollars! They just dropped her, and it’s completely ruined her reputation and everything she’s worked for. It’s not just about the money, it’s about justice for a truly brilliant mind!

I’m hearing my client is seeking $293,154 to cover the financial impact this situation has had on her, and an additional $30,000 for each violation of the Fair Work Act. Ultimately, it will be up to the court to decide exactly how many violations occurred, and therefore the total amount awarded.

Read More

2026-04-16 07:06