A multi-millionaire businessman has lost a final appeal to prevent his former wife from keeping her £48 million divorce pay-out, the biggest awarded by a British court.

John Charman, nicknamed the “King of the London insurance market”, attempted to take the battle with his ex-wife Beverley to the House of Lords in a last-ditch attempt to reduce the award.

An initial ruling last July ordered Mr Charman, 54, to pay Mrs Charman £48 million in acknowledgement of her role in his success.

Despite arguments by Mr Charman that the original £20 million he had offered was more money than a reasonable person could spend in a lifetime, the Court of Appeal threw out his challenge in May 2007, in a ruling that confirmed that the “equality principle” should govern the splitting of a couple’s assets.

Mr Charman’s lawyers argued on appeal that the £48 million award was “unfair and unreasonable.” This morning it emerged that Lords Hope and Walker and Baroness Hale have released papers announcing their decision to refuse a further appeal.

Without giving reasons for their conclusion, the law lords said that had the case gone before them it would have focused, among other things, on how courts in future should assess the “special contribution” by a wife to a marriage such as the Charmans.

However, their refusal to hear an appeal in the case suggests that the Lords are satisfied that the other judges have already got the formula for that assessment right and have been fair to the Charmans.

The couple met when both were aged 18 and married five years later. They separated in November 2003 and were divorced in 2005.

After the Appeal Court verdict, which has now been upheld, Mrs Charman said: “I acknowledge that the sum awarded to me is huge by any standards but the Court of Appeal has decided that it fairly reflects the contributions made by John and me during our 28 year marriage.

At the time, Mr Charman said he was “profoundly disappointed” at the decision of the Appeal judges. He added: “English family law is in a mess. It is muddled, incomprehensible and lags behind that in most other countries.”

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO