Regina v Home Secretary, ex parte Chugtai: 1995

The court considered the natural and ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘ordinarily resident’.
Held: It was a question of fact for each case. Collins J noted the example given in argument of a person who had a contract for a definite period of time which might amount to a number of years, to work out of the United Kingdom, which, he concluded would not necessarily prevent that person from being ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom throughout that period and that they may might also, at the same time, be ordinarily resident wherever it was that they were working on the contract. In such circumstances, as in this case, this person, if they came back to the United Kingdom within the two year period because that was the only way in which they could preserve their right to remain in the United Kingdom, would be seeking admission on that occasion for the purposes of settlement. He noted also that it was perfectly possible for someone to be ordinarily resident in two countries at one and the same time.
Collins J said: ‘If there is a question of disbelieving anything an applicant has said, that ought to be spelt out. It is obviously desirable to indicate specifically why any witness is being disbelieved’.


Collins J


[1995] Imm AR 559


ConsideredRegina v Barnet London Borough Council, Ex parte Shah HL 16-Dec-1982
The five applicants had lived in the UK for at least three years while attending school or college. All five were subject to immigration control, four had entered as students with limited leave to remain for the duration of their studies, and the . .

Cited by:

CitedPetition of Daljit Singh v The Right Honourable Jack Straw, MP for Judicial Review SCS 7-Jan-2000
The point made by Collins J in Chugtai may be particularly relevant where ‘a question of credibility arises which has to be resolved by an adjudicator”. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.510897