A Sydney-based currency trader lost his job after his employer discovered that he was working from a Singapore hotel through his laptop while he was expected to be working from home in Australia. The case took an unexpected turn when Australia’s Fair Work Commission ruled that, although the company had valid grounds to dismiss him, it had failed to follow a fair disciplinary process.

Charles Graham worked for HIFX Australia, which operates under the currency exchange brand Xe, for around 20 months before his employment ended in December 2025. The dispute began after the company discovered that he had logged in from Singapore without permission to work overseas.

The ruling has drawn attention to the risks employees face when working remotely from another country without their employer’s approval, even if they continue performing their duties.

Company rejected his request to relocate to Singapore

In September 2025, Graham reportedly asked Xe for permission to relocate to Singapore for a year. The company rejected the request, explaining that his position was based in Sydney and that it was not licensed to operate in Singapore.

After the request was denied, Graham obtained permission to work from home for three months, citing an eye injury. He later took annual leave and travelled to Singapore.

Graham was expected to return to work on November 17, 2025. When he did not appear to resume work as scheduled, his manager contacted a member of the company’s IT team to investigate his status.

In an internal message, the manager reportedly asked the IT employee to use their “FBI skills” to determine whether Graham was online.

Laptop tracking exposed his location

The company’s checks traced Graham’s work laptop to an Ibis hotel in Singapore, revealing that he had logged in from outside Australia.

Graham told the company that he had originally planned to return to Sydney after his holiday. However, he said his partner developed a bacterial infection and needed medical treatment, forcing him to postpone the return flight.

He explained that the change in plans happened over the weekend and that he did not believe there was an expectation for him to contact his manager outside business hours.

Graham also said that when he eventually logged in from Singapore, he was confronted with hundreds of unread emails, incoming calls and a complaint from an important client. He claimed that handling the backlog took priority over informing his manager about his location.

Xe rejected his explanation and dismissed him on December 2, 2025, citing breaches of company policy, failure to follow instructions and a breakdown of trust.

Earlier overseas work also became part of the case

During the proceedings, Graham said he had previously worked remotely from other locations, including Bali. He argued that his employer had not disciplined him for those earlier arrangements and challenged the company’s use of location-tracking technology, describing it as illegal surveillance.

However, his manager told the commission that she had not known he was working overseas on those occasions.

Evidence also included a message in which Graham had told his manager he was working from home because a plumber was expected to address recurring bathroom problems. The commission heard that he had actually been in Bali at the time.

These earlier incidents became relevant to whether Graham understood that overseas remote work required permission. They also weakened his argument that he was unaware of the company’s expectations.

Fair Work Commission finds the dismissal unfair

Graham challenged his termination before Australia’s Fair Work Commission, arguing that the company had handled the dismissal improperly.

Commissioner Alana Matheson found that Graham had deliberately concealed his location and understood that he needed approval to work from another country. She concluded that his conduct amounted to dishonesty and that Xe had a valid reason to terminate his employment.

However, the commission also identified significant flaws in the employer’s disciplinary process.

It found that Xe had not adequately raised all the matters it relied on when deciding to dismiss Graham or given him a proper opportunity to respond to the complete case against him. The commission therefore ruled that the dismissal was unfair because the process had been procedurally flawed, despite the underlying reason for termination being valid.

Employee gets no additional compensation

Although Graham succeeded in his unfair dismissal claim, the ruling did not result in his reinstatement or an additional compensation award.

The commission considered reinstatement inappropriate, partly because of the conduct that had contributed to his dismissal. It also declined to award compensation, noting his role in the events and the four weeks of pay in lieu of notice he had already received.

The outcome highlights an important distinction in workplace disputes: an employer can have a legitimate reason to dismiss an employee and still make the dismissal unfair by failing to follow the required process.

For remote workers, the case also serves as a reminder that permission to work from home does not necessarily mean permission to work from any country. Employers may impose location restrictions because of regulatory requirements, tax obligations, data security concerns and other business considerations.