TNAG-1188-FCO40-1490-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1982 — Page 66

Q

:

2

Court held that he had arrived in England with the specific purpose of studying, qualifying and then leaving and was thus not "ordinarily resident".

5.

The Cicutti case was heard a week after the Shah decision and clearly follows the reasoning in that case. The plaintiff was born in Italy of Italian parents. But he was educated in England, entering in 1971 when he was 10%. His parents remained, in Italy. Between 1976 and 1979 the plaintiff spent four holidays in Rome with his father and five holidays in England. He was an Italian citizen although he had applied in England to be naturalized. He had applied for a grant to go to University but this was refused on the ground that he had not been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for the preceding 3 years.

6.

The Court, in deciding that he was ordinarily resident held that, in assessing whether a person had the requisite inten- tion to remain in the United Kingdom in order to be "ordinarily resident", physical manifestations of that intention were not essential for that purpose. It had been argued that mere intention to settle was not sufficient. There must be some physical evidence to show intention, such as acquiring a home, storing personal effects or opening a bank account. The Court found these contentions "unconvincing". It decided that, althoug the plaintiff had originally arrived in the United Kingdom for the specific purpose of being educated there, he had by the time the authority considered his application formed a genuine intention of remaining there, and that was sufficient to make him "ordinarily resident"

1