Bermuda, lying in the north-west Atlantic some 1500km north of the Caribbean, has tried hard to sustain its image of a quiet, conservative resort.

With a population of some 60,000, Bermuda has strict rules against billboards and neon signs, a policy that seems to be warmly endorsed by the half a million tourists who visit the island each year, many who say that they come to escape the rampant commercialism of other resorts.

The burger battle became a hot political issue

But within the past three years, that carefully cultivated image has been under direct attack, with a plan by a group of Bermudian entrepreneurs to introduce a chain of McDonald's restaurants on the island.

That scheme, and its prominent proponent, have now received a setback.

It was some two and a half years ago that a small legal notice appeared in the island's one daily newspaper, announcing that a former premier of Bermuda, Sir John Swann, was applying for permission to open a chain of McDonald's restaurants on this very British island.

The idea of golden arches spanning Bermuda's winding lanes was controversial enough to provoke uproar on the island - and provoke uproar it did.

In view of the fact that Sir John was the former leader of the ruling United Bermuda Party, the finance minister, Grant Gibbons, was forced to deny that anything improper had occurred.

But government backbenchers, intent on fighting to the bitter end, introduced the Prohibited Restaurant Act which, while not mentioning either Sir John Swann or McDonald's by name, was clearly designed to block the plans.

The debate on the bill was bitter and contentious, causing deep divisions within the United Bermuda Party.

When the act was finally passed by the island's legislature, an equally determined Sir John challenged the constitutionality of the law in the island's Supreme Court.

Although the Supreme Court struck down the act, agreeing that the absence of compensation provisions conflicted with the island's constitution, the three-judge court of appeal has now ruled that the Prohibited Restaurant Act is constitutional.

It even went so far as to award costs against Sir John's company.