Trader Wins Unfair Dismissal Case After Overseas Work

Published: 09 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

A Sydney-based currency trader who was dismissed after working from Singapore without his employer’s approval has won an unfair dismissal case in Australia, although he will receive no financial compensation. The Fair Work Commission found that while the employee’s conduct gave the company a valid reason to terminate his employment, the process used to reach that decision was procedurally unfair.

The case involving Charles Graham and HIFX Australia, which trades as Xe, highlights the increasingly complicated relationship between workplace flexibility, overseas remote working and employers’ expectations about communication and policy compliance. It also illustrates how an employer can have legitimate concerns about an employee’s conduct while still failing to follow a fair process when deciding whether dismissal is justified.

Graham was dismissed in December 2025 after the company discovered that he had been working from Singapore without permission. The discovery came after his manager asked an information technology worker to investigate the location of his laptop, reportedly encouraging the worker to use his “FBI skills” to identify its internet protocol address. The investigation indicated that Graham was logging in from Singapore rather than Australia.

The company subsequently discovered that Singapore was not the only overseas location from which Graham had worked. Evidence presented during the proceedings indicated that he had also worked from Bali on an earlier occasion, despite telling his manager that he was working from home because a plumber was due to attend to recurring bathroom problems.

The revelation raised concerns about whether Graham had been truthful with his manager and whether he had complied with company rules governing remote work and overseas travel. Xe maintained that employees needed advance approval to work outside Australia and that Graham was expected to attend the office three days a week. The company concluded that he knew the relevant expectations but had chosen not to follow them.

Graham offered a different explanation for his time in Singapore. He told the commission that he had travelled there for a holiday and intended to return to Australia. However, his partner developed a bacterial infection, which he said prevented them from travelling back as originally planned. He submitted documentation that he said supported his account of his partner’s medical treatment.

The trader had previously asked Xe for permission to relocate to Singapore, but the company had rejected the request. Graham said his later visit was a holiday and was unrelated to that earlier application. He argued that the decision to change his return flight was made over a weekend, leaving him unable to inform his manager in the usual way.

He also disputed the suggestion that he had deliberately concealed his location. According to his written response to the company, there was no established expectation or precedent requiring him to contact his manager outside business hours. He maintained that he had intended to explain the situation as soon as practicable.

Graham said that when he logged on from Singapore, he was confronted with hundreds of unread emails that had accumulated during his time away. He also had incoming calls to handle and needed to address a complaint from a high-value client. He argued that these immediate work responsibilities took priority and contributed to the delay in telling his manager that he was overseas.

Other points raised in his defence included his claim that he expected to remain abroad only for a short period and had not been clearly informed about specific policies governing hybrid work. He said he planned to notify his manager once circumstances allowed. Xe, however, was not persuaded by those explanations.

The company sent Graham a termination letter on 2 December 2025 after reviewing his written submissions. It said he had failed to provide adequate supporting evidence, including flight screenshots bearing his name and medical information demonstrating that his partner could not travel. It also considered his explanation for not informing his manager about his location insufficient.

Xe further argued that Graham had previously followed workplace absence and approval procedures, indicating that he understood the company’s expectations. The employer therefore concluded that his failure to obtain permission was a conscious decision rather than an innocent misunderstanding.

The termination letter described his conduct as a serious breach of company policy and a failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions. It also said that the situation had caused an irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence between the employee and the business.

Graham had worked for Xe for approximately 20 months. During the proceedings, he told the commission that he had worked remotely from Townsville the previous year and from Bali during April and May 2025. His manager, however, said she had not known that he had ever worked from overseas.

A Microsoft Teams message submitted as evidence became relevant to the commission’s consideration of the Bali episode. The message showed Graham telling his manager that he was working from home because of a plumbing problem on a day associated with his overseas work. The discrepancy added to the questions about whether his communications with the company accurately reflected his location.

Fair Work Commission commissioner Alana Matheson examined the sequence of events leading to Graham’s dismissal. She noted that the tone of the company’s communications had changed after Graham was informed on 17 November 2025 that his overseas work had been discovered. By the following day, the company had told him there was a case to answer over alleged breaches of workplace policy.

Further email exchanges and discussions among Xe managers took place over the following ten days before the termination decision was communicated. The commission considered whether the company had adequately informed Graham of the matters being relied upon and given him a fair opportunity to respond before making its final decision.

Matheson ultimately found that the dismissal was unreasonable in procedural terms. Although she accepted that there was a valid reason for the company to dismiss Graham, she concluded that the process was unfair because Xe had not fully raised all the matters on which it relied when deciding to terminate his employment.

The distinction is significant. The ruling did not establish that Graham was entitled to work overseas without approval, nor did it dismiss the company’s concerns about his conduct. Instead, it found that the employer’s handling of the disciplinary process did not meet the required standard of procedural fairness. A legitimate concern about an employee’s behaviour does not automatically remove the need for an employer to explain the case against that employee and provide a meaningful opportunity to respond.

Despite finding that Graham had been unfairly dismissed, the commission rejected reinstatement as an appropriate remedy. It also decided not to award him compensation. Matheson considered his misconduct a contributing factor in the decision to dismiss him and noted that he had already received four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.

The outcome therefore gave Graham a legal finding in his favour without providing the financial remedy that often accompanies a successful unfair dismissal claim. It also left the employer’s central concerns about unauthorised overseas working substantially intact, even though the commission found the dismissal procedure wanting.

The case comes amid continuing debate over remote and hybrid working arrangements, which have allowed employees in many industries to carry out their duties away from traditional offices. While technology makes it possible to work from different cities and countries, the practical and contractual rules governing those arrangements can vary considerably between employers.

Working from another country may raise issues beyond ordinary home-working arrangements, including company security policies, access to confidential information, legal obligations and the need for management approval. Employees may also face uncertainty when personal emergencies or unexpected travel disruptions interfere with existing plans. In such circumstances, clear communication and documented procedures can become particularly important.

For employers, the ruling underlines the need to distinguish between the reason for taking disciplinary action and the fairness of the process used to impose it. Companies may have valid grounds to investigate suspected misconduct, but they should clearly explain the allegations, identify the evidence on which they intend to rely and give employees a reasonable opportunity to answer those concerns before reaching a final decision.

For employees, the case is a reminder that remote working flexibility does not necessarily mean freedom to work from any location without permission. Staff should check the terms of their employment, understand relevant approval requirements and communicate promptly when travel or personal circumstances affect their ability to comply with workplace arrangements.

Graham’s case ultimately turned on that tension between workplace accountability and procedural fairness. The commission recognised the company’s valid reason for concern but concluded that its dismissal process was deficient. By refusing both reinstatement and compensation, it delivered a mixed outcome that acknowledged the procedural failure without overlooking the employee’s contribution to the dispute.

The broader lesson is that workplace policies and fair disciplinary procedures must operate together. Employers need to protect legitimate business interests, while employees must be able to understand and respond to allegations made against them. In an era of increasingly flexible working arrangements, clear rules and transparent decision-making remain essential to maintaining trust on both sides.