A Sydney-based currency trader, Charles Graham, was terminated from his position at HIFX Australia, which trades as Xe, after his employer discovered he was secretly working from a hotel in Singapore. Graham had been approved to work from home in Australia due to an eye injury but was found to be logging in from abroad without permission.
Trader Fired After Secretly Working from Singapore
The incident came to light after Graham, who had been with the company for about 20 months, was due to return to the Sydney office on November 17, 2025, following annual leave. Instead, he logged into his work laptop from Singapore. Xe's IT team subsequently traced his IP address and GPS location to an Ibis hotel in Singapore, leading to his dismissal on December 2, 2025.
Policy Breach and Discovery
Earlier, Graham had requested permission to work from Singapore for a year, a request that was explicitly denied by the company. He later secured a three-month work-from-home approval, citing an eye injury. The company cited policy breaches and a significant breakdown of trust as reasons for his termination.
Employee's Defense and Commission's Findings
Graham defended his actions by stating he had intended to return to Australia but delayed his flight due to his partner developing a bacterial infection requiring medical treatment. He also argued that the company's method of locating him constituted "illegal tracking surveillance."
However, Australia's Fair Work Commission, led by Commissioner Alana Matheson, found that Graham had deliberately concealed his true location. The commission concluded that he was aware of the company's requirement for approval to work from another country and that his failure to disclose his whereabouts amounted to dishonesty.
Unfair Process, Valid Dismissal
While the Fair Work Commission determined that Xe had a valid reason to dismiss Graham, it also found that the company had not followed a fair process during the termination. Consequently, Graham succeeded in his unfair dismissal claim. Despite this partial victory, he will not be reinstated to his job nor will he receive additional compensation, as he had already been paid four weeks' salary in lieu of notice.
This case highlights the growing complexities and legal ramifications surrounding remote work policies, particularly when employees operate from international locations without explicit company consent.