False Records in Farm Labour: Court Imposes $180,288 in Fair Work Penalties

| September 18, 2026

On 13 August 2026, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) handed down its decision in Fair Work Ombudsman v Korserv Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1570 (Korserv).

As discussed in our News Article on 26 February 2026, the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) accused Korserv and its manager, Janghwan Choi (Mr Choi), of knowingly providing falsified pay slips, bank transaction records, piecework agreements, time records and superannuation accrual records relating to workers at a strawberry farm.

Background: Fair Work Investigation into Farm Labour

Korserv was a labour hire provider supplying workers to a strawberry farm in the Glass House Mountains.

Fair Work Inspectors conducted a site visit to the strawberry farm on 11 September 2023.

Following the site visit, the FWO commenced an investigation into Korserv’s compliance with workplace laws and industrial instruments between July 2023 and September 2023.

Mr Choi admitted to providing false documents in two sets of emails sent on 18 December 2023 (First Email) and 24 January 2024 (Second Email), after Fair Work Inspector Jodi Gribben (FWI Gribben) requested documents.

The 108 Alleged Contraventions

The FWO submitted that the provision of the documents amounted to 108 contraventions of section 718A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) and sought penalties in respect of six categories of contraventions.

Section 718A of the FW Act prohibits a person from providing false or misleading information or documents to the FWO or a Fair Work Inspector where the person knows, or is reckless as to whether, the information or document is false or misleading.

Attachments to the First Email

The first group of documents included:

• 54 pay slips containing false payment and superannuation amounts that had not been paid to the relevant workers;
• four documents purporting to provide evidence of payments from Korserv’s ANZ bank account, showing net payments allegedly made to workers; and
• nine piecework agreement records signed by Mr Choi that purported to contain the signatures of the named workers.

Attachments to the Second Email

The second group of documents included:

• 25 further pay slips containing false payment and superannuation contribution amounts;
• three further documents purporting to provide evidence of payments from Korserv’s ANZ bank account, showing net payments allegedly made to workers; and
• 13 superannuation accrual records containing false superannuation contribution amounts.

Admissions by Korserv and Mr Choi

Mr Choi stated that:

• the strawberry farm kept records of the hours worked and determined the applicable pay rates; and
• Korserv paid wages to two contracting companies, which in turn paid the farm workers.

Despite that position, during the FCFCOA proceedings Korserv admitted to six categories of contraventions.

Mr Choi personally admitted to:

• creating the documents that were sent to FWI Gribben in response to her requests;
• creating the piecework documents, which the workers had not seen;
• creating the pay slips provided to the FWO using Xero, despite not providing those pay slips to the workers;
• not knowing the rates the workers were actually being paid and instead using the rates he had told the subcontractors; and
• not paying the wages or superannuation contributions recorded in the documents provided to the FWO.

As a result of those admissions, two important issues were not in dispute.

First, Korserv was regarded as the employer even though payments to workers had been contracted to other companies.

Second, as the employer, Korserv had obligations under section 535 of the FW Act to keep accurate employee records. It was not sufficient for the strawberry farm, as the host business, to maintain those records.

Why the Court Imposed Significant Penalties

Judge Egan found that Mr Choi deliberately intended to mislead the Fair Work Inspectors and that the production of false and misleading documents demonstrated a blatant disregard for section 718A of the FW Act.

In determining the appropriate penalties, Judge Egan considered the totality principle and whether the penalties imposed were appropriate and proportionate to the conduct.

Although Korserv was no longer trading, Mr Choi was no longer operating a labour hire business, and Mr Choi had cooperated and expressed contrition during the proceedings, the Court considered the nature and scale of the conduct sufficiently serious to warrant penalties that would deter others from engaging in similar conduct.

The Court treated the First Email and Second Email as separate contraventions.

Given the seriousness and extent of the conduct, Judge Egan imposed pecuniary penalties equivalent to 80% of the applicable maximum penalty for each contravention.¹

Korserv was ordered to pay:

• $93,900 × 80% = $75,120 × 2 = $150,240

Mr Choi was ordered to pay:

• $18,780 × 80% = $15,024 × 2 = $30,048

The combined penalties totalled $180,288.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The decision provides several important reminders for employers and labour hire providers.

• Significant financial penalties can be imposed for knowingly providing false or misleading records to Fair Work Inspectors.
• Employers have legal obligations to maintain accurate employment, time, wage and payroll records.
• Minimum workplace rights under the FW Act and applicable modern awards generally apply regardless of a worker’s visa status.

Strengthening Your Workplace Compliance Framework

Accurate payroll systems and compliant record-keeping practices are essential, particularly in sectors such as labour hire and agriculture where regulators maintain a strong focus on workplace compliance.

Proactive payroll auditing and regular compliance reviews can help identify problems before they escalate into regulatory investigations or enforcement proceedings.

Businesses should regularly review their payroll systems, employment records, award classifications, superannuation processes and arrangements with labour hire providers or subcontractors to ensure their practices remain compliant.

Need Help Reviewing Your Workplace Compliance?

If you are unsure whether your payroll systems, record-keeping processes or Award classifications comply with your workplace obligations, IRiQ Law can assist with tailored compliance reviews and payroll auditing services.

Contact our team to discuss your workplace obligations and help ensure your business is protected.

Footnote

¹ Fair Work Ombudsman v Korserv Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1570, [16].