A Sydney-based currency trader lost his job after his employer discovered that he was working from Singapore while claiming to be working from home in Australia. The case has drawn attention to the limits of remote work and the importance of following workplace policies.
However, Australia’s Fair Work Commission found that although the employer had a valid reason to dismiss him, it failed to follow a fair dismissal process.
Laptop Investigation Exposes Overseas Work
Charles Graham, an employee of HIFX Australia, which operates as Xe, was dismissed on December 2, 2025. The company discovered that his work laptop was located at a hotel in Singapore when he was expected to be working from home in Sydney.
His manager contacted the IT department to verify his location after he was due to return from annual leave. The investigation revealed that he had remained overseas without informing his employer.
Company Had Rejected His Request
Graham had previously asked for permission to work from Singapore for a year. However, the company rejected the request, explaining that his role was based in Sydney and it did not have the necessary licence to operate in Singapore.
He later travelled to Singapore on annual leave but did not return as expected. He said his partner had developed a bacterial infection during the trip, forcing them to delay their return to Australia.
Graham said he intended to inform his manager but became occupied with work emails, calls and a client complaint. The company said his explanation and supporting documents did not adequately justify concealing his location.
An Earlier Incident Involved Bali
The company also referred to an earlier occasion when Graham reportedly said he needed to work from home because a plumber was visiting, while he was actually in Bali.
The Fair Work Commission considered this history relevant when assessing whether he understood that overseas remote work required approval.
Commission Found Dismissal Process Was Unfair
In its October 7, 2026, decision, the Fair Work Commission found that Graham had deliberately concealed his location and that the employer had valid grounds for dismissal.
However, the commission also identified procedural shortcomings. The company had not adequately explained the case against him or provided a proper opportunity for him to respond before the decision was made.
Four Weeks’ Pay, but No Reinstatement
Despite finding the dismissal procedurally unfair, the commission did not order Graham’s reinstatement or award additional compensation. It concluded that a fairer process was unlikely to have changed the outcome.
Graham was entitled to four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice, highlighting the distinction between an employer having grounds for dismissal and following the correct procedure.
What the Case Means for Remote Workers
The case illustrates that working remotely does not automatically mean employees can work from any country. Employers may need to consider workplace rules, business operations, licensing requirements and other legal obligations before approving overseas work.
Employees planning to work while travelling should obtain clear permission and communicate any changes to their location. The case also underlines that employers must follow fair procedures when handling disciplinary action and dismissals.