The Guardian
· collected 2026-10-09 · by Nino Bucci Courts and justice reporter
A currency trader for HIFX Australia, trading as Xe, won an unfair dismissal case after being fired for working from Singapore without permission. The Fair Work Commission ruled that the company unfairly dismissed the employee when they discovered he had been working remotely from both Singapore and Bali without approval. Despite winning the case, the employee did not receive compensation. The dispute arose when the employer tracked the IP address on his laptop to find out where he was working and subsequently terminated him for violating company policy regarding overseas work and hybrid work arrangements.
Written locally by qwen2.5:14b on 2026-10-09,
using this article's own text rather than the other coverage of the
same event (that is the story summary below).
Story summary
Charles Graham, a currency trader for HIFX Australia (trading as Xe) in Sydney, won an unfair dismissal case after being fired for working from Singapore without permission. On December 2, 2021, Xe terminated Graham's employment following the discovery that he had been using his work laptop from Singapore, which was revealed when IT staff tracked his IP address at his manager’s request. The company denied Graham’s earlier request to relocate to Singapore and maintained that he knew prior approval was required for overseas work.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on Wednesday that Xe unfairly dismissed Graham since he provided documentation showing his partner needed medical treatment due to a bacterial infection while in Singapore, preventing their return to Australia. However, despite winning the case, Graham did not receive compensation as requested by him. Commissioner Alana Matheson noted that although Xe’s decision was harsh, Graham had previously misled about working from home under false pretenses and knew he needed permission for international work arrangements.
Written for “Worker Wins Dismissal Case Australia” on 2026-10-09,
grounded in this article and the 0 other(s) covering the same event.
Why this leaning score
This article does not take a side on a contested political
question, so it has no leaning score. That is an
answer rather than a gap: a match report or a rescue can be warmly
or critically written without being left or right, and scoring it
anyway is how approval of a subject gets recorded as a political
position.
No political leaning scored for article 67690 · logged 2026-10-09
A Sydney currency trader who was sacked for working from Singapore without approval has won an unfair dismissal case, but failed to be awarded compensation.
asserted
who → sack → compensation
The Fair Work Commission ruled on Wednesday that Charles Graham had been unfairly dismissed by HIFX Australia, trading as Xe, in December last year.
asserted
Graham → rule → December
Graham was sacked after his manager asked an IT worker to use his “FBI skills” and track the IP address on Graham’s laptop.
asserted
manager → sack → laptop
They discovered he was working from Singapore.
asserted
he → discover → Singapore
It was also later discovered he had previously worked from Bali after telling his manager he was working from home because he had a plumber “coming around to sort out some recurring bathroom issues”.
asserted
plumber → discover → issues
Graham was sacked as Xe found he knew he had to get prior approval to work overseas and was to attend the office three times a week.
asserted
he → sack → times
He said he had been holidaying in Singapore before his partner became ill with a bacterial infection, preventing him from returning to Australia.
asserted
partner → say → Australia
He provided documentation, which he said showed his partner required medical treatment.
asserted
partner → provide → treatment
Graham had previously asked Xe if he could relocate to Singapore, but his request was denied.
uncertain
request → ask → Singapore
Fair Work Commission commissioner Alana Matheson said that after the company sent an email to Graham advising him of its discovery on 17 November last year, the “tone … had clearly pivoted” by the following day, when he was told “there was a case to answer regarding alleged breaches of company policy”.
asserted
he → say → policy
Over the following 10 days, a series of further email exchanges and a discussion between Xe managers took place.
asserted
series → follow → place
Graham said in his written response to Xe that he travelled to Singapore for a holiday and that there was no relation to his previous request to relocate there, that the decision to reschedule the return flight to Australia was made over a weekend, and that as there was no expectation or precedent that he contacted his manager outside business hours, he could not inform them of this.
uncertain
he → say → this
He said that when he did log on from Singapore rather than in Australia “he was bombarded with triaging hundreds of unread emails from his time off, fielding inbound calls and dealing with an eligible complaint from a high-value client”, and this took priority over telling his manager he was stuck overseas.
asserted
he → say → manager
Among his other responses was that he only intended to spend a short amount of time overseas, he had not been told about specific policies regarding hybrid work, and that he had intended to let his manager know he was overseas as soon as practicable.
asserted
he → intend → work
The company was not swayed and on 2 December last year sent him a termination letter that stated it had carefully reviewed his written submissions and found that he had not provided flight screenshots with his name, medical evidence that showed his partner was unable to travel, an adequate explanation for not telling his manager he was in Singapore, and had previously complied with “absence and approval processes”, demonstrating that he was familiar with them and had instead made “a conscious choice not to follow” them.
asserted
he → sway → them
“Your conduct represents a serious breach of company policy, a failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions, and an irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence,” it said in the letter.
asserted
it → represent → letter
Graham told the commission he worked remotely twice before November 2025: the previous year from Townsville and in April and May 2025 from Bali.
uncertain
he → tell → Bali
He had been employed by Xe for 20 months.
asserted
He → employ → months
But his manager said she had not been aware he had ever worked remotely from overseas.
asserted
he → say → ?
A Microsoft Teams message from Graham to his manager was included in evidence before the commission that detailed his claim he was working from home as he had a plumbing issue during one of the days he also told the commission he worked from Bali.
uncertain
he → include → Bali
Matheson found that she was satisfied that the dismissal of Graham was unreasonable because while there was a valid reason for his dismissal, the process followed was procedurally unfair.
asserted
process → find → dismissal
This was because Xe failed to fully raise the matters it was relying on in making the decision to dismiss Graham, Matheson said.
asserted
Matheson → fail → Graham
She found that reinstatement was inappropriate but also decided against awarding compensation.
asserted
reinstatement → find → compensation
This was, she said, in part because his misconduct contributed to the decision to dismiss him, and he was paid four weeks in lieu of notice.
asserted
he → say → notice
The Aporia
