1. It must have been physically put together in some way prior to consumption, not necessarily at one's place of residence. However it must also have been manipulated by either the person consuming the lunch or someone whom the consumer has not purchased the lunch from.
2. It must not exist in the same physical form as it did when purchased from the shops, i.e. Something must be altered.

Which brings into question the definition of a lunch. Considering all logic and precedent, such as Choo v Chung (2000) UNSW 16, the definition of lunch is as follows:

1. It must consist of edible substances.
2. Lunch is a meal which means that food must be consumed in the duration of it. Drinks or liquids do not constitute a lunch.

In the court of first instance, I believe respectfully that the arguments of my most noble and learned friend are most inadequate, and no authority is cited for her view. Furthermore, no sufficient nor logical reason has been given for her view. I therefore overrule the decision in the court of first instance. Thus, from the definitions set out above, I am of the opinion that bringing "merely" a mandarin, or, any other type of fruit for that matter, does not constitute "making a lunch". However, should that fruit have been cut into pieces, such as in a fruit salad, I believe it would constitute a "made lunch" as it satisfies the above definition.

Appeal allowed.