A record divorce battle could be played out in the courts of Bermuda after an appeal to UK Law Lords failed.

The BBC has reported that reinsurance tycoon John Charman is now "considering his options" after being told he cannot appeal to the House of Lords. His spokesman said: "There may be proceedings in the Bermuda court."

Mr. Charman, 54, chief executive officer of Axis Capital Holdings Ltd, has been fighting to get a $96 million divorce bill to ex-wife Beverley, of Kent, reduced to $40 million.

The settlement was upheld by the UK Court of Appeal in May - the largest divorce payment in British history. At the time, Mr. Charman branded it "grotesque and unfair". He said the $40 million offer reflected his ex-wife's role as "a housewife". Mrs. Charman, 53, however, claimed the $96 million "fairly" recognised her contribution to their 28-year marriage.

The legal battle may now return to Bermuda after three Law Lords ruled there can be no further appeal.

Mr. Charman's spokesman said: "It was deemed to be not in the public interest that the matter be debated further. He is now considering his options and there may be proceedings in the Bermuda court."

Mr. Charman was ranked second in The Royal Gazette's list of executives' salaries at 18 of the Island's biggest insurance and reinsurance companies.

Last year he picked up a compensation package of $10,875,051. His salary was $1,250,000 and he received a bonus of $1,989,700.

The original divorce settlement ruling at London's High Court a year ago said Mrs. Charman was entitled to a large portion of the assets because when the marriage started the couple had little money and she took care of the home while Mr. Charman went out to work.

At the time she estimated he was worth $320 million, but Mr. Charman said this included a $140 million trust in Bemuda for their two children, Nicholas and Michael, and future generations.

His lawyer Barry Singleton QC, argued that Mr. Charman had made an "exceptional" contribution to the couple's wealth through his financial skills, and that it would be discriminatory for judges not to award him a higher percentage of the assets.