The claimant a former civil servant had retired due to ill health, and appealed refusal of disability living allowance. The court did not accept that one could have facts on which different tribunals could properly reach different conclusions about whether the ‘cooking test’ had been satisfied. The test was intended to be ‘straightforward’ and produce the same answer on the same facts. The provision of a cooked main meal was something required ‘not on an occasional basis but on a regular basis if someone is to enjoy a reasonable quality of life’. If the inability to cook was on ‘no more than occasional days’, the test would not be satisfied. But if there was a ‘clear pattern’ of a person not being able to provide for himself, it would.
Judges:
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P, Potter and Kay LJJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 408
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Moyna SSCS 31-Jul-2003
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Moyna v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 31-Jul-2003
The appellant had applied for and been refused disability living allowance on the basis of being able to carry out certain cooking tasks.
Held: The purpose of the ‘cooking test’ is not to ascertain whether the applicant can survive, or enjoy a . .
Cited – Stancliffe Stone Company Ltd v Peak District National Park Authority CA 17-Jun-2005
In 1952, the Minister wrote a leter confirming the planning permissions for four quarries now owned by the claimants. In 1996, two of the quarries were separately included in a list of dormant sites, and in 19999 the applicant began to apply for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.170104
