Karl Stefanovic buys out podcast business partner, avoids upcoming court hearing

Karl Stefanovic has bought out his podcast producer and avoided airing their bitter split in court.

Stefanovic was due in court next week after his producer and business partner filed an urgent injunction to stop the television icon booting her from their operation.

In a statement on Friday, a spokesperson for Stefanovic said the presenter and podcaster had purchased his partner’s stake for a confidential sum.

A spokesperson for his co-owner and producer, Keshnee Kemp Ibrahim, has declined to comment.

The bitter split came as Stefanovic was dumped by Nine Entertainment and the Today show for interviewing British far-right agitator Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon.

Stefanovic and Ms Ibrahim each held 45 per cent of the production company 123 Podcast, set up this year to make The Karl Stefanovic Show video podcast.

Ms Ibrahim believed her business partner had a legal case to answer over attempts to remove her from the operation. Preliminary court filings and hearings had been held, and Stefanovic was expected to be cross-examined in court on Tuesday and Wednesday next week.

A spokesperson for Stefanovic said on Friday the pair had reached a confidential settlement.

“Ms Ibrahim and Mr Stefanovic have today agreed to settle the litigation and dispute between them in relation to 123 Podcast Pty Ltd and The Karl Stefanovic Show,” Stefanovic’s spokesperson said.

“While the terms of this settlement are confidential, the arrangement results in Mr Stefanovic acquiring the interests of Ms Ibrahim in the company and Ms Ibrahim exiting the company as a shareholder and director.

“Ms Ibrahim has also agreed to discontinue the litigation she commenced against Mr Stefanovic.”

Stefanovic’s accountant owns the remaining 10 per cent of 123 Podcast.

The NSW Supreme Court had previously been told by Stefanovic’s lawyer the pair’s relationship hit an “irreconcilable breakdown”.

Ms Ibrahim’s lawyers contended Stefanovic’s moves to remove her from the business were “oppressive” and “unfairly discriminatory”.