In the process of challenging a DLA refusal from tribunal in respect of the main meal test.

In the FWRs, cl is recorded as having said she could hold a knife long enough only to peel one potato and that she cannot chop vegetables.

The tribunal then state that using cl's own evidence she is able to prepare one vegetable and that therefore she is able to prepare a main meal for one.

Is anyone aware of any CD giving more details on what a main meal (as opposed to a celebration meal or just a snack) might comprise?

My reading of cooking test CDs suggests it is whatever a tribunal can justify as reasonable. In that case I’m left with arguing that a meal of, lets say a chop, and one potato is not a main meal.

If five portions of fruit and vegetables is the recommended daily minimum, surely a MAIN meal ought to contain more than one of the five?

CDLA/1850/1998 might be useful which held that beans on toast was not a main meal.

Though sightly off point it is also worth remembering (which many tribunals do not) that the cooking test is a thought process designed to calibrate the severity of disability (Moyna HL per Lord Hoffman).

Subsequently, the words of the commissioner, after quoting Lord Hoffman)in CDLA/1714/2005, should provide a useful starting point to any analysis of the cooking test.

He said (at para'8) " Since the cooking test is intended to calibrate the severity of a claimant’s disability, and not a claimant’s actual ability to provide a main meal for himself, the focus of the tribunal’s inquiry must be on the effects of any disability on the claimant’s ability to cook a main meal, rather than on ways in which those effects can be overcome".

she described a limitation on how long she can hold a knife for peeling, and an inability to chop vegetables - an action requiring more force than peeling requires - that was her evidence. there are other actions, trimming or dicing meat, maybe stirring, which your client has problems with - there's more to cooking a meal than peeling or chopping vegetables.

CDLA/17329/96 went against the claimant - however in para 15 the Commissioner said this -

"I accept that the consequence of this is that, if the claimant did not have assistance, the range of meals she could prepare would be somewhat restricted. However, the test is concerned with an ability to prepare a cooked main meal and, as long as there is a reasonable variety of meals that can be prepared by the claimant, the range need not be unlimited. One must approach a case like this with a broad brush and a reasonable amount of commonsense."

the tribunal could just have easily concluded that your client was unable to cook a main meal either in a range of reasonable variety or in sufficient quantity to avoid malnutrition! anyone could sicken from a spud and a chop a day...

i think your argument is that the tribunal did not approach the cooking test correctly.

Thanks everyone for the replies.

I knew we were on to something. Leave to appeal req. is in and I'll see how it goes from there!