Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Nur Farhana Ismail challenges Lintas Pantry Supplies Sdn. Bhd.'s statement to Ipoh warehouse staff that the company's annual sales were below RM50 million and that an announced June 2027 RM2,000 minimum would therefore not apply. The notice is described in the record as circulated on 10 October 2026. 2. The plaintiff does not ask for an immediate wage award or a finding that sales exceeded RM50 million. Her final request is limited: the exemption should not be treated as verified on the present record until the company explains its sales figures and completes its marketplace reconciliation. The defendant asks that the request be denied, relying on an asserted internal annual sales summary of RM49.6 million and the possibility that marketplace orders are duplicates. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether the below-RM50-million claim is adequately supported on this record, and whether the staff notice presented the exemption as settled. The plaintiff bears the burden of supporting the relief she requests under Rule 1, The Claim Needs Proof. Rule 2 gives greater weight to reliable records than unsupported assertions. Rule 45 requires an administrative decision to have support in the record. Rule 4 recognizes the importance of fair notice. Submissions of the parties 4. The plaintiff says the company announced the exemption as a settled conclusion while relying on a figure close to the threshold and an unfinished marketplace reconciliation involving RM800,000 in unreconciled orders. She accepts that the orders may be duplicates and does not claim they were omitted from the sales total. She says she has no further independent sales records and seeks neither wages nor a finding that the threshold was crossed. 5. The defendant says the internal annual sales summary supports a figure of RM49.6 million and that marketplace orders should not be double-counted. It characterizes the notice as provisional planning guidance. It does not provide the underlying sales summary or a record explaining the reconciliation. Evidence and findings 6. The WhatsApp notice is presented as an exhibit in records exhibit-3-e1, exhibit-5-e1, exhibit-7-e1, and exhibit-9-e1. These are repeated presentations of the same notice, not independent corroborating messages. The notice says that annual sales are below RM50 million and that the announced minimum will not apply. It contains no qualification about final implementation rules. The exhibit is described as having moderate strength and notes the defendant's contrary characterization. I find that the notice supports what staff were told, but it does not establish the company's actual sales or the legal effect of the exemption. 7. The RM49.6 million figure and the RM800,000 reconciliation are described in the parties' submissions, including statement-1, statement-2, statement-5, statement-7, and statement-9. No underlying sales summary, ledger, or reconciliation is presented. The defendant's repeated assertion is argument, not itself a produced sales record. The plaintiff's account of the unfinished reconciliation is also not proof that any orders were omitted. The plaintiff expressly accepts that they may be duplicates and does not ask the court to infer that sales exceeded the threshold. Reasons 8. On the first issue, the plaintiff has not proved that annual sales exceeded RM50 million. The unreconciled orders create uncertainty, but uncertainty is not proof of omitted sales, particularly given the plaintiff's concession that they may be duplicates. The court makes no finding that the threshold was crossed. 9. The narrower question is whether the exemption is verified by the record now before the court. It is not. The defendant relies on a figure appearing only in submissions, without presenting the underlying summary or explaining how the unfinished reconciliation was handled. Under Rules 1, 2, and 45, a claim that depends on a sales threshold cannot be treated as established merely because a party repeats a figure. The plaintiff's limited request succeeds to that extent. This is not a finding that the exemption is unavailable; it is a finding that the present record does not verify it. The court does not order a future reconciliation or decide what later records may show. 10. On the second issue, the notice itself supports the plaintiff's account that staff were told the exemption would apply, without qualification. The defendant's description of the notice as provisional is relevant context but is not reflected in the wording presented. I therefore find that the notice presented the exemption as settled to staff. That finding does not establish that the notice changed any legal entitlement, that wages are owed, or that the sales threshold was crossed. 11. The defendant's point about possible duplicate orders is accepted as a reason not to infer that the threshold was exceeded. It does not supply the missing explanation for the asserted sales figure. Conversely, the plaintiff's lack of independent records prevents a finding that the exemption is false. The outcome is therefore limited to the status of proof on this record. No wage amount is claimed or supported, and no compensation is awarded. Final order 12. The plaintiff's limited request is granted: on the evidence presented in this hearing, the defendant's below-RM50-million exemption claim is not verified. The court does not find that annual sales exceeded RM50 million, does not determine whether the exemption ultimately applies, and does not award wages or other monetary relief. No payment is ordered between the parties. Any later determination of eligibility would require a record supporting the relevant sales figure and treatment of the reconciliation; this judgment does not decide that future question.