It is true that the husband had come to England from Australia for approximately four weeks hoping to effect a reconciliation with his wife and in order to safeguard his position regarding the child of their marriage. Karminiski J. held that on those facts there was such residence in England to found a petition by the wife for judicial separation, since although the husband did not intend to reside permanently, he had come to England deliberately for the purpose I have mentioned. Accordingly His Lordship held that his residence in England was not merely casual or in itinere. Morton J. held that an Australian woman, domiciled in Australia, who came on a visit to England in 1885, and shortly afterwards became of unsound mind, continued to live in England until her death 54 years later, remaining of unsound mind throughout that period, was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for the purposes of the Finance Act. That case however is clearly distinguishable on its facts from the present.
Residence denotes some degree of permanence.
It does not necessarily mean the applicant has a home of his own, but that he has a settled headquarters in this country. It seems dangerous to try to define what is meant by residence. It is very unfortunate that it is not possible to do so, but, in my judgment, the question before the court is in every such case whether the applicant is a person who resides in this country. I do not think either of the applicants is resident in England at present. Again it seems to me that this passage is also applicable to the facts of the instant case.