Sydney trader wins unfair dismissal case after being sacked for working from Singapore

A Sydney-based currency trader who was dismissed for working from Singapore without his employer’s approval has won an unfair dismissal case, although Australia’s Fair Work Commission has declined to award him compensation.

Charles Graham, who worked for HIFX Australia, trading as Xe, was dismissed in December 2025 after the company discovered he was working remotely from Singapore without authorisation. In a ruling issued on Wednesday, Fair Work Commission commissioner Alana Matheson found that while there was a valid reason for his dismissal, the company’s disciplinary process was procedurally unfair.

Graham had been working for Xe for 20 months. The company dismissed him after discovering that he had worked overseas without informing his manager, despite being required to obtain prior approval for overseas work and attend the office three days a week.

The issue came to light after Graham’s manager asked an IT employee to track the IP address of his laptop. The investigation established that he was working from Singapore. The company subsequently discovered that he had also worked from Bali earlier in 2025, after telling his manager he was working from home because a plumber was expected to address recurring bathroom issues.

Graham told the commission that he had travelled to Singapore for a holiday but could not return to Australia as planned after his partner developed a bacterial infection requiring medical treatment. He provided documentation that he said supported his account.

He also explained that the decision to reschedule his return flight had been made over a weekend and that he had not expected to contact his manager outside business hours. When he resumed work from Singapore, he said, dealing with hundreds of unread emails, incoming calls and a complaint from a high-value client took priority over informing his manager that he was overseas.

Graham maintained that his stay abroad was intended to be temporary, that he had not been informed of specific hybrid-work policies and that he planned to notify his manager as soon as practicable.

The company rejected his explanation. In its termination letter dated 2 December 2025, Xe said he had failed to provide sufficient evidence relating to his flights and his partner’s medical circumstances, or an adequate explanation for not informing his manager.

The company also argued that Graham had previously followed its absence and approval procedures, indicating that he understood the requirements but had consciously chosen not to comply.

His dismissal letter described the conduct as a serious breach of company policy and a failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions, resulting in an irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence.

In her decision, Matheson found that the process followed by Xe was procedurally unfair because the company had not fully raised the matters it relied on when deciding to dismiss Graham.

She noted that the tone of the company’s communication had shifted between 17 and 18 November 2025. After initially informing Graham that it had discovered he was working from Singapore, the company told him the following day that he had a case to answer over alleged breaches of company policy.

Further email exchanges and internal discussions followed over the next 10 days before the termination decision was made.

Graham told the commission that he had worked remotely from Townsville in the previous year and from Bali in April and May 2025. However, his manager said she had not known he had worked from overseas.

Evidence before the commission included a Microsoft Teams message in which Graham told his manager he was working from home because of the plumbing issue, on a day he said he had actually been working from Bali.

Matheson concluded that the dismissal was unreasonable because, although a valid reason existed, the employer had not followed a procedurally fair process.

The commission ruled that reinstatement was inappropriate and declined to award compensation. Matheson said Graham’s misconduct had contributed to the dismissal decision and that he had already received four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.

The ruling highlights the distinction between having a valid reason to dismiss an employee and following a fair process when making that decision.