Business & Finance

Sydney Currency Trader Wins Unfair Dismissal Ruling After Being Fired for Working from Singapore

By Nino Bucci

A Sydney currency trader, Charles Graham, was found to have been unfairly dismissed by HIFX Australia, trading as Xe, after he was fired in December last year for working from Singapore without approval. The Fair Work Commission ruled on Wednesday that Graham’s dismissal was procedurally unfair, although he was not awarded compensation. Graham was terminated after an IT worker tracked the IP address on his laptop and discovered he was working from Singapore. Xe had previously learned that he had worked from Bali while claiming to be working from home because a plumber was fixing recurring bathroom issues. Xe’s policy required employees to obtain prior approval to work overseas and to attend the office three times a week. Graham had asked Xe to relocate to Singapore, but the request was denied. After Xe discovered his overseas work, the company sent him an email on 17 November last year. The following day, the tone of the communication changed, and Graham was told there was a case to answer regarding alleged breaches of company policy. Over the next ten days, further email exchanges and a discussion among Xe managers took place. Graham’s written response to Xe explained that he had been holidaying in Singapore before his partner became ill with a bacterial infection that required medical treatment. He provided documentation showing his partner’s medical needs. Graham said he had not been told about specific hybrid‑work policies, that he intended to spend only a short time overseas, and that he had not been expected to contact his manager outside business hours. He also claimed that when he logged on from Singapore he was overwhelmed with hundreds of unread emails, inbound calls, and a high‑value client complaint, which took priority over informing his manager that he was stuck overseas. Xe sent him a termination letter on 2 December stating that it had carefully reviewed his submissions and found he had not provided flight screenshots, medical evidence, or an adequate explanation for not notifying his manager. The letter said his conduct represented a serious breach of company policy, a failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions, and an irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence. Graham had worked remotely twice before November 2025: once from Townsville the previous year and again from Bali in April and May 2025. He had been employed by Xe for 20 months, but his manager claimed she had not been aware of his overseas remote work. A Microsoft Teams message from Graham to his manager was included in the evidence, detailing his claim that he was working from home while a plumbing issue was being addressed. The commission found that while there was a valid reason for his dismissal, Xe had not fully raised the matters it relied on in making the decision, making the process procedurally unfair. The commission ruled that reinstatement was inappropriate but decided against awarding compensation, citing Graham’s misconduct as contributing to the dismissal and noting that he had been paid four weeks’ notice in lieu of termination.