A "rigid" legal time limit that prevented a victim of millionaire Lotto rapist, Iorworth Hoare, suing him for damages amounts to a violation of human rights, Appeal Court judges were told today.

Serial rapist Hoare, from Leeds, attacked the woman, known only as Mrs A, in a park in the city in 1988. Her counsel, Alan Newman QC, told the court it was "a violent and degrading sexual assault" from which she still bears psychological scars.

The QC said Hoare was not worth suing until August 2004 when, on day release from prison, he bought a £7.2 million winning lottery ticket.

Mrs A promptly launched her damages claim but has since twice been told by the courts that she cannot sue Hoare for the trauma she suffered because such claims have to be launched within a six-year legal time limit.

Mr Newman today told the nation's pre-eminent civil judge - the Master of the Rolls, Sir Christopher Clarke - and two senior colleagues that the "rigid" and "inflexible" time limit breached Mrs A's fundamental right to access to justice, enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The judges heard the irony of Mrs A's position is that, had she been the victim of an unintentional "breach of duty", or negligence - rather than Hoare's "deliberate" attack - she would now be in a stronger position to pursue her compensation claim.

That is because the six-year time limit imposed by the 1980 Limitation Act in cases of "trespass to the person" cannot be extended. In unintentional "negligence" cases, the time limit is three years - but the court retains a discretion to allow cases to proceed even after that time has expired.

Mr Newman told Sir Christopher - sitting with Lord Justice Brooke and Lady Justice Arden - the reality was that there is "no point suing an indigent defendant who is serving a long term in jail" and Mrs A's first real chance of "effective access" to the courts arose when Hoare had his lottery win.

The "rigidity" of the six-year time limit in trespass to the person cases was "incompatible" with Mrs A's "right to proper access to a court" and a "disproportionate" interference with her human rights, the QC argued.

Mr Newman also claimed the facts of Mrs A's case could be brought within the more liberal three-year time limit applied to "breach of duty", or "negligence", cases so that the court has a discretion to allow her to proceed with her damages claim.

However, Christopher Sharp QC, for Hoare, said his client's "deliberate or intentional" attack on Mrs A could in no way be described as "negligence" and the six-year time limit had to be applied without any judicial discretion to extend it.

The wording of the 1980 Limitation Act was unambiguous and the QC said it would be "very unfair" on Hoare to have to face a civil compensation claim more than 16 years after he attacked Mrs A.

Hoare became a millionaire after buying the winning ticket on weekend leave from Leyhill prison in South Gloucestershire.

He has since been freed.

Hoare, 52, was jailed for life in May 1989 for trying to rape Mrs A in Roundhay Park, Leeds. "It was a most degrading incident and included fairly unspeakable acts on the part of Mr Hoare," Mr Newman told an earlier High Court hearing.

Hoare had previously been convicted of a string of sex attacks, including rape, during the 1970s and 1980s. Until his win, Hoare, who had been in prison for much of his life, had no cash assets.

Once Mrs A learned of the win, she realised it was "worthwhile" suing him for the psychiatric damage she had suffered and her lawyers argued there was thereafter very little delay before she issued her claim in December 2004.

Mrs A's claim was first struck out because of the six-year time limit by High Court official, Master Eyre, and her appeal against that decision was dismissed by Mr Justice Jack in October last year. Mr Newman told the court at the time that there must be "something very wrong in the law" if Mrs A's damages claim was to be dismissed without a full hearing.

Legal argument in Mrs A's appeal is expected to conclude today but, recognising the importance of the case, the three judges have already indicated they will reserve their decision until a later date. ends.