Divorce – Financial provision. The appellant wife applied for a variation of the terms of an undertaking given by her to the court in a financial order made by consent in divorce proceedings. The judges below held that the effect of Omielan v Omielan ([1996] 3 FCR 32) was to exclude jurisdiction to entertain the wife's application for a variation. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the wife's appeal, held that, while the existence of the jurisdiction to vary the undertaking was recognised, there was no basis upon which the court would exercise the jurisdiction in the present case.