A compassionate appointment rejection must be reasoned and disclose the assessment under relevant criteria.

The applicant’s father, an employee of the respondents, died on 27 March 2012.

She applied for compassionate appointment in 2016, asserting that she had been dependent on her father despite being married.

The respondents sought further material concerning her dependency and ultimately rejected her claim by order dated 23/24 January 2018, referring to her marriage during her father’s lifetime and the absence of evidence of dependency at his death.

The applicant challenged that order before the Tribunal, contending that it was arbitrary and non-speaking; the respondents maintained that she had not supplied sufficient proof of dependency.

1. Whether the order rejecting the applicant’s compassionate-appointment claim was a reasoned and speaking order.

2. Whether the rejection should be set aside and the applicant’s claim reconsidered afresh.

The judgment does not cite any statute, regulation, or judicial precedent.

It applies the administrative-law principle that an order deciding a claim must disclose the reasons and material basis for the decision.

In this case, a reasoned rejection required the authority to identify the relevant assessment criteria or heads, the marks awarded under them, and the basis on which the applicant’s evidence was assessed.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was a brief statement referring to the applicant’s marriage and the absence of evidence of dependency, but did not identify the criteria or factors considered, the documents sought or received, or how the applicant’s material had been evaluated.

Because the order did not reveal the basis for rejecting the claim, it could not be treated as reasoned and speaking.

The defect warranted fresh consideration, rather than an order granting compassionate appointment directly.

The authority was directed to complete the exercise within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order and communicate its decision within the following two weeks; no costs were awarded.