Charles Graham won an unfair dismissal ruling against foreign exchange firm HIFX Australia after being tracked to Singapore, but the national workplace tribunal declined to award him any financial compensation. The Fair Work Commission, Australia’s workplace relations tribunal, determined that while the brokerage breached procedural fairness during the termination, Graham’s intentional misconduct warranted his ultimate removal from the company.
Commissioner Alana Matheson delivered the decision in Sydney on Wednesday (7), ruling that the termination finalized on December 2, 2025 was legally unreasonable due to administrative defects in how the employer handled disciplinary proceedings. Despite recognizing the dismissal as unfair under employment statutes, the commission refused to order Graham’s reinstatement or award damages. The decision established that Graham had already received four weeks of salary in lieu of notice and that his deceptive actions disentitled him to any further financial remedy.
Tracking Charles Graham to Singapore with IT surveillance
The corporate investigation began in mid-November 2025 when Graham’s direct manager grew suspicious of his whereabouts and instructed an internal information technology employee to use “FBI skills” to locate his corporate laptop. Technical logs immediately confirmed that the device was accessing the network from Singapore, despite employment guidelines at HIFX Australia, which operates commercially as Xe, mandating that staff attend the Sydney office three times per week. The company discovered the overseas connection after Graham failed to report to his designated desk, initiating an internal security review of his system credentials.
Read also: Former New Zealand premier Jacinda Ardern secures $5.3 million Sydney coastal residence
Management sent an initial email to Graham on Monday, November 17, 2025, notifying him that technical records identified his login originating outside Australia. By Tuesday, November 18, 2025, company officials shifted the nature of the inquiry, formally advising him that “there was a case to answer regarding alleged breaches of company policy.” Over the subsequent 10 days, senior managers engaged in internal discussions and exchanged correspondence with Graham regarding his failure to secure prior authorization.
Keep reading: Child's critical condition ignites Sydney gun buyback dispute amid political tension
In his written defense to the brokerage, Graham maintained that his journey to Singapore was personal annual leave and bore no connection to a previous formal request to transfer his post to the Asian financial hub, which Xe had already rejected. He asserted that his partner contracted a severe bacterial infection that required urgent medical intervention, forcing them to reschedule flights back to Sydney over a weekend. Graham explained that because company protocol did not require contacting supervisors outside regular business hours, he postponed notifying management until he logged into his workstation on Monday morning.
Learn more: Sydney woman receives additional jail time for abusive husband's death and dismemberment
Graham further contended before the commission that upon connecting to the server from his overseas accommodation, “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.” According to his submission, managing the urgent client grievance took operational precedence over informing his manager about his location, and he had intended to notify her as soon as practicable.
Remote work in Bali and plumber excuses at Xe
During the formal investigation and the tribunal hearing, additional evidence revealed that Graham had engaged in unauthorized telework on earlier occasions during his 20 months at the foreign exchange firm. Records demonstrated that he had previously worked remotely from Townsville, located in northern Queensland, before traveling to Indonesia to conduct his trading duties from Bali throughout April and May 2025. Graham had concealed his presence in Bali from company supervisors by submitting misleading electronic status updates regarding his physical work location.
Evidence submitted to the commission included a message sent over Microsoft Teams in which Graham informed his supervisor that he was working from his Australian home because an artisan was “coming around to sort out some recurring bathroom issues.” His manager testified that she had remained entirely unaware that he had conducted foreign currency trading from overseas territories during that period, assuming he was operating from his domestic residence in Sydney.
HIFX Australia rejected Graham’s explanations in a termination notice issued on December 2, 2025, stating that he failed to supply adequate medical documentation verifying that his partner was unable to travel, flight booking records bearing his name, or a valid justification for evading disclosure. The firm wrote in the dismissal letter that his behavior constituted “a serious breach of company policy, a failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions, and an irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence.”
Fair Work Commission ruling on procedural fairness and compensation
In her evaluation of the employment dispute, Commissioner Matheson concluded that the sacking was procedurally flawed because Xe executives did not clearly put all the specific allegations to Graham before deciding to end his contract. Under the provisions of the Fair Work Act, failure to provide an employee with an adequate opportunity to respond to the precise grounds for dismissal renders the termination harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, even when a substantive reason for termination exists.
The tribunal nonetheless determined that Graham was not entitled to compensation or reinstatement because his dishonesty and intentional avoidance of workplace policies contributed directly to his dismissal. Matheson noted that Graham understood the company required three days of weekly office attendance and prior authorization for international remote work, yet made a deliberate decision to bypass internal governance.
The ruling finalized Graham’s 20-month tenure at the foreign exchange provider without any additional monetary award, closing the tribunal proceedings over his unauthorized overseas employment.
