Family farming companies often run on trust, habit and paperwork prepared by an accountant. A machinery operator may attend the annual meeting, sign wherever a sticker has been placed and still take no part in governing the company. When worker status turns on whether that person is a director, the documents matter, but they do not answer the statutory question.
That is the useful point in WorkCover Queensland v CRG Harvesting Pty Ltd [2026] QCA 124, delivered on 3 July 2026. The Queensland Court of Appeal held that a man who repaired and operated machinery in a family cane harvesting business worked under a contract of employment and was not acting in the position of a director. In my view, the decision is best read narrowly. It does not make inaccurate corporate records harmless. It shows why those records must be tested against the functions actually performed in the particular company.
The paperwork did not make the machinery operator a director
CRG Harvesting conducted a cane harvesting business around Mackay. Its formally appointed directors were the worker’s wife, Lisa, and his former sister-in-law, Stacey. The worker and his brother performed the field work. On 15 August 2018, a harvesting tractor came off a jack while the worker was underneath it carrying out repairs.
WorkCover had declined to indemnify CRG Harvesting on the basis that the man was not a worker under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 11. It argued there was no contract, or no contract of employment; that the arrangement was a sham or lacked an intention to create legal relations; and, alternatively, that the man was excluded because he was a director under Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) sch 2 pt 2 s 1.
The Court rejected each route. Years of fixed weekly payments, payroll records, superannuation contributions, PAYG withholding and tax returns supported a contract inferred from conduct. The work was embedded in CRG Harvesting’s business. The man’s brother told him which farm was to be harvested, supervised the employees and coordinated work that the haul-out task necessarily followed.
The director argument also failed. The signed declarations and occasional meetings were isolated from the company’s real decision-making. Lisa and Stacey handled its managerial, administrative, financial and governance affairs. The worker operated, repaired and serviced machinery. Consultation about equipment drew on his practical experience, not an assumed corporate office.
Employment was inferred from what the parties did
There was no written employment contract and the case was not decided on proof of a particular conversation. That made the parties’ conduct central both to whether they had contracted and to the terms of their relationship. The Court applied Cagney v D&J Building Contractors Pty Ltd [2025] QCA 116 and treated the s 11 question as turning on common law employment.
The modern emphasis from Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 is whether the work is subordinate to the putative employer’s business rather than part of an independent enterprise. Because there was no comprehensive written contract here, the factors identified in Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd [1986] HCA 1 remained relevant insofar as the parties’ conduct established their rights and duties.
The evidence pointed in one direction. CRG Harvesting contracted with growers, earned the harvesting revenue, maintained payroll records and paid the worker throughout the year, including the off-season. It credited superannuation and withheld tax. The worker supplied labour within a coordinated harvesting operation and did not conduct a separate business. His experience meant he required little supervision in the cab or workshop, but lack of close supervision did not convert skilled labour into an independent enterprise.
A later reversal of wages in the accounts did not alter the position at the date of the incident. The change occurred years after the engagement began and was explained as a response to a poor profit projection. It could not retrospectively undo the arrangement that the parties had implemented. Nor did the sham submission supply a shortcut. Applying Raftland Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] HCA 21, the Court required proof that the parties intended an apparent legal arrangement to disguise their true one. The contention had not been pleaded with specificity, put squarely to relevant witnesses or proved.
Director status depends on functions, not labels
The exclusion raised a different inquiry. Under Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) sch 6, the definition of director includes a person who holds or acts in that position, whether or not validly appointed or authorised. The breadth of the definition prevents formal appointment records from being conclusive. It also prevents a loose label from doing all the work.
The Court framed the question as one of substance and degree. It asked whether the person had performed roles and functions reasonably expected of a director of this company, having regard to its operations and governance. As the problem was put in Re Valleys Rugby League Football Club Ltd [1997] 2 Qd R 645, the difficulty lies in deciding how much a person must do before occupying or acting in the position. One isolated act will not generally establish that status. Repeated exercise of director functions may.
That company-specific focus matters. Talking to growers could be commercially important without being a director’s function in CRG Harvesting. Responsibility for hauling cane could involve operational judgment without authority over corporate affairs. Even attendance at an accountant’s meeting said little where the worker accompanied his wife, sat apart, contributed little and was also present for discussion of other family entities.
The strongest evidence for WorkCover was the worker’s signature on three Directors’ Declarations and earlier banking documents. The Court did not dismiss those signatures as meaningless. It examined their setting. The accountant said the designation was an administrative error. The declarations were not provided to a regulator or third party, the accountant knew they were wrong, and the worker signed where the stickers directed without reading them. Against that stood the absence of authority over staff, finance, banking, accounts, equipment purchases and corporate administration.
The reasoning is practical, but not a paperwork amnesty
The attractive reading is that reality defeated form. That is broadly right, but it can be overstated. The Court said signing a document carries legal significance even when it has not been read. The declarations failed to establish director status because they were isolated, erroneous, unused externally and unsupported by the worker’s conduct. Change any of those facts and the balance may shift.
I would not reduce the case to a checklist of bank access, hiring authority and board minutes. The statutory object is the position of director in the particular corporation. In a small family company, operational and governance roles may overlap. A person who repeatedly approves expenditure, directs staff, deals with lenders and participates in strategic decisions may act in the position even though another relative keeps the books and the formal register says otherwise.
The reasons also leave a genuine temporal issue open. Because de facto status can change, the Court identified but did not decide whether the exclusion is tested when the policy is effected, when the injury is sustained, or perhaps both. Two things kept it open. The parties did not directly address it, and on these facts the evidence did not establish director status at any time, so the question did not arise. That combination is worth noting: the point is unargued rather than settled, and the present tense in the exclusion is still there to be run. Practitioners should therefore build a chronology of functions and authority, not merely collect records from the date of the incident.
Build the evidence around authority exercised in the business
For a worker-status dispute in a family enterprise, start with the actual flow of work and money. Identify who engaged customers, allocated tasks, supplied equipment, maintained payroll, withheld tax and made superannuation contributions. The Court’s reasoning gives those facts more explanatory force than family informality or a later accounting adjustment.
For the director exclusion, separate operational expertise from corporate authority. Ask who could hire or dismiss staff, commit funds, operate accounts, obtain finance, approve equipment and instruct the accountant. Then test formal documents against their creation, use and audience. A declaration sent to a regulator or lender, repeated participation in decisions, or evidence that outsiders dealt with the person as a director would present a materially different case.
The decision is relevant to the classification issues that arise in Queensland workers’ compensation matters and the insurance setting discussed in Fraser Lawyers’ overview of WorkCover claims in Queensland. Its sharpest lesson is evidential: inaccurate paperwork can be answered, but only by evidence showing who actually governed the company.
Published 5 August 2026.
If you would like to discuss your matter, you can book a consultation or call (07) 5554 6116.
