Thousands of victims of sexual abuse including a woman whose life was ruined by the so-called Lotto rapist are preparing to lodge compensation claims after a landmark ruling by Britain’s highest court yesterday.

Local authorities, churches, schools, charities and insurers are bracing themselves for claims that could total millions of pounds.

The ruling by five law lords comes in six test cases, including that of Mrs A, a retired teacher attacked by Iorworth Hoare, who later won £7 million on the lottery while in prison. He served 16 years of a life sentence for her attempted rape. At least two more of Mr Hoare’s victims are considering legal action, DLA Piper, the firm that represented Mrs A, said. The women approached the firm in November.

As The Times revealed yesterday, the law lords swept away the bar on bringing claims for sexual assault more than six years after an attack. Instead, courts should have discretion to allow claims to go ahead outside the time limit, they said.

All the individual cases will now go back to the courts so that they can be reconsidered in the light of the findings by Lord Hoffmann, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell and Lord Brown of Easton-under-Heywood.

Mrs A, who received £5,000 in compensation two years ago from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for the attempted rape in 1988,is maintaining her anonymity. In a statement read by Sandra Baker, of DLA Piper, she said: “I am delighted and relieved that my appeal to the House of Lords has been successful and that I have succeeded in changing a law which will provide others with a means of achieving justice.”

Mrs A’s claim and the other test cases are likely now to come back to the courts within months. Mrs A hopes to recover enough to repay the £5,000 from the compensation board.

That, her lawyers said, was her aim. “If there is anything awarded above that, it is a bonus. But she has always said this is not about money,” they said.

Mrs A was originally ordered to pay Mr Hoare’s £100,000 legal fees after unsuccessful attempts to bring a case for compensation in the High Court and Court of Appeal. Costs for the appeal have yet to be decided but it is likely that Mr Hoare will be ordered to repay the £100,000 plus legal costs.

In another of the cases, Kevin Young, 49, claims that he suffered sexual abuse when in the care of Catholic Care in Leeds in the 1970s and in a Home Office detention centre. He sought to bring a claim in 2003, more than 20 years after the expiry of the time limit for such claims.

Kathy Perrin, of the law firm Hill Dickinson, who acted for Catholic Care, said that it took comfort from the ruling because not all historic claims would be able to proceed. Judges would have a discretion in such cases and if victims delayed a claim for “psychosocial reasons” that would not be enough to allow a claim to go ahead late, she said.

The law lords ruled that the present law was anomalous and forced victims to try to prove negligence to get around the time bar. Judges have discretion on whether to allow negligence claims to proceed, but sexual assault claims have a six-year limit.

Test of time
Five other test cases were involved in the landmark decision:

C v Middlesbrough council The claimant was subjected to sexual abuse between 1982 and 1988 at a council-managed school. The judge said that C would have got damages of nearly £100,000 but that the claim was barred by the Limitation Act and dismissed allegations of negligence against the council

H v Suffolk County Council The appellant claimed that while at a school for difficult children managed by the council he was sexually abused by a member of staff. He brought proceedings 12 years later. Case was thrown out because it was out of time

X, Y v Wandsworth London borough The two appellants allege that between 1984 and 1987 they were abused by one teacher at a council-managed school. They brought proceedings more than 15 years later and were told that they would have won damages but for the fact that they were outside the time limit

Y v Catholic Care and Home Office The claimant alleges that sexual abuse by employees at a school and a detention centre. His claims were again barred by the Limitation Act

Explore Law

• Corporate Law

• Public Law

• Columnists

• Law Panel

• Student Law

• Law Reports

Times Recommends

• Hacker in final plea to stop extradition
• Lawyers? They're simply riveting . . .
• Companies slash legal spending