Trader Fired for Working From Singapore Wins Unfair Dismissal Case but Gets Nothing

Sydney currency trader Charles Graham was sacked for working from Singapore without approval, won his unfair dismissal case, and was awarded no compensation. The Fair Work Commission gave that divided result in a decision reported on 9 October 2026. The Guardian

Commissioner Alana Matheson decided the case. She ruled Graham had been unfairly dismissed by HIFX Australia, trading as Xe, in December last year. Xe is a global currency company. Graham had been employed for 20 months.

Xe's rules were explicit. Graham needed prior approval to work overseas. He also had to attend the office three times a week. He had previously asked to relocate to Singapore. That request was denied.

The discovery came through technology. Graham's manager asked an IT worker to use his 'FBI skills' to track the IP address on Graham's laptop — an IP address works like a return address for a computer on the internet. The tracking placed Graham in Singapore. Xe emailed Graham on 17 November last year about its discovery. On 18 November, it told him he had a case to answer over alleged breaches of company policy.

Xe sent a termination letter on 2 December last year. It said his conduct was "a serious breach of company policy, a failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions, and an irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence." The Guardian

Graham did not dispute he was in Singapore. He said he travelled there for a holiday and extended his stay because his partner became ill with a bacterial infection that prevented a return to Australia. He told the commission he had previously worked remotely from Townsville the previous year and from Bali in April and May 2025. The Bali period followed a message to his manager that he was working from home because a plumber was coming to fix recurring bathroom issues.

He lost the job. He won the claim. He gets nothing in remedy.

The broader context here is that the outcome separates two questions managers often merge. The first is whether the employee broke a lawful and reasonable instruction. The second is whether dismissal was the fair response in all the circumstances. An unfair-dismissal finding with zero compensation keeps both ideas on the record.

The broader lesson for teams working across borders is about procedure. The earlier time in Townsville and Bali, the denied Singapore move, the approval and office-attendance rules, the IP checks, and the documented timeline in November and December formed the paper trail. In this matter, that trail was enough to support serious breach in the termination letter, but not enough to make the dismissal itself fair in the commission's assessment.