Beware WFH employees who enjoy travel: Man gets fired as boss catches him in Singapore instead of home but ruling calls it 'unfair'

Working from home does not necessarily mean employees can work from anywhere they want, as a Sydney-based currency trader discovered after his employer traced his work laptop to a hotel in Singapore. Charles Graham was supposed to be working from home in Australia but had stayed overseas after a holiday, despite his request to work from Singapore for a year being rejected.

Graham, who was employed by HIFX Australia, trading as currency exchange company Xe, was sacked from his job on December 2, 2025. He later challenged the decision before Australia’s Fair Work Commission, which found the company had a valid reason to sack him but handled the dismissal unfairly.

Company tracks laptop to Singapore hotel

According to The Straits Times, Graham was expected to return back to work on November 17, 2025, after he had taken his annual leave. When he did not return as scheduled, his manager contacted the IT department to check his location.


In an email to an IT employee, his manager wrote: "Our mate should be online today, first day since his holiday, so I will need your FBI skills."

The investigation that happened after this, traced Graham's work laptop to an Ibis hotel in Singapore, revealing that he was not working from his home in Sydney.

This came to light after the company had rejected his September 2025 request to work from Singapore for a year. Xe said his position was based in Sydney and that it did not have a licence to operate in Singapore.

Following the rejection, Graham submitted a medical certificate citing an eye injury and worked from home for a period before taking annual leave and travelling to Singapore.

Employee says partner's illness delayed return

Graham told the company that he had planned to return to Australia but had to postpone his flight because his partner developed a bacterial infection and required medical treatment.

He said the change in plans happened over the weekend and that he did not think to inform his manager outside business hours.

He also explained that, when he eventually logged in for work from Singapore, he was overwhelmed by unread emails, incoming calls and a complaint from a high-value client. Informing his manager about his location, he said, had taken a back seat.

Xe rejected the explanation, saying the documents Graham provided did not adequately establish that his partner was unable to travel or explain why he had concealed his location.

The company's termination letter stated: "Your conduct represents a serious breach of company policy, a failure to follow lawful and reasonable instructions, and an irreparable breakdown of trust and confidence."

Earlier Bali incident also caught

The investigation also brought up an earlier incident involving Graham's remote-working arrangements.

According to The Straits Times, he had previously asked to work from home because a plumber was expected to fix recurring bathroom problems. The company later found that he had been in Bali, Indonesia, at the time.

Graham argued before the commission that he had worked from Bali on earlier occasions without being reprimanded. His manager, however, said she had not known he was overseas during those periods.

The commission considered this history when assessing whether Graham understood that he needed permission to work from another country.

Commissioner Alana Matheson found that his failure to disclose his location in Singapore was "deliberate and amounted to dishonesty".

Why the dismissal was ruled as unfair

Despite finding that Xe had a valid reason to dismiss Graham, the Fair Work Commission found problems with the way the company handled the termination.

According to The Guardian, the commission found that Graham had not been properly informed of the matters relied upon by the company or given a fair opportunity to respond. Internal messages also raised concerns that the outcome may have been decided before his explanation was properly considered.

The commission ruled the dismissal procedurally unfair but did not order his reinstatement or award additional compensation, concluding that a fairer process was unlikely to have changed the outcome.

Graham was entitled to four weeks' pay in lieu of notice, which he did receive.