A woman accusing her late lesbian partner of lying about her £5.5million fortune when their 18-year relationship ended could have her bid to get more money from her estate sent to the High Court.

Helen Roocroft, from Bolton, Greater Manchester, today launched the latest round in her fight for more cash from the estate of her property developer ex-girlfriend Carol Ainscow at a Court of Appeal hearing in London.

The court was told that Ms Ainscow had led Ms Roocroft to believe her fortune - once estimated at £35million - had been drastically reduced by the property crash.

During their break-up, the property tycoon submitted documents that suggested her wealth had been reduced to just £750,000.

Believing that to be the case, Roocroft accepted a settlement of £162,000.

Helen Roocroft (left), from Bolton, Greater Manchester, today launched the latest round in her fight for more cash from the estate of her property developer ex-girlfriend Carol Ainscow (right) at a Court of Appeal hearing in London

But after Ms Ainscow died from a brain tumour four years later, aged just 55, her estate was valued at in excess of £5.5million. She had not left a will.

Ms Roocroft is now arguing that her ex 'misrepresented her wealth' - and is now taking legal action against a representative of Miss Ainscow's estate in the hope of getting a bigger slice of her fortune.

Lord Justice Elias, the most senior of the three judges - who is sitting with Lord Justice Kitchin and Lady Justice King - said at the start of the appeal hearing that 'on the face of it' Ms Roocroft has an 'extremely strong case' after losing her first fight for a larger pay out in 2014.

If successful, the case will go back to a High Court judge to decide just how much Ms Roocroft can get from the estate.

Ms Ainscow's sister, Moya Ball, is representing the late businesswoman's estate. She disputes Ms Roocroft's claim, insisting there is 'no merit' in the appeal.

Helen Roocroft was photographed outside Court of Appeal where she launched a bid for more of her ex-partner's money

Ms Roocroft claims the pair were in a stable relationship from 1991 to 2009, and entered into a civil partnership in December 2008.

Ms Ainscow's company Artisan transformed flats, bars and restaurants on Canal Street, Manchester into a thriving gay village.

She also opened up Manto one of Manchester's openly gay bars, before extending her property empire into other northern cities.

Together, they lived a life of luxury in a six-bed house with swimming pool and spa.

Ms Roocroft underwent several courses of IVF fertility treatment as they desperately tried to have a baby, but all were unsuccessful.

They separated in 2009 when Ms Roocroft left the family home and the civil partnership was dissolved in August 2010.

The Sunday Times Rich List put Ms Ainscow's wealth in 2009 at £35m as one of the top property developers in the north.

But Richard Todd QC representing the estate said: 'This amateurish piece of journalist tittle-tattle is not a good basis for mounting a quasi-fraud case.'

He said: 'This is a case of a wife who having bargained for a clean break wishes now to resile from that agreement.'

He said her evidence of non disclosure was 'flimsy' and her case should be dismissed because it had 'no merit.'

The couple shared a luxury six bedroom home with a swimming pool and spa and had an 'exceptionally high standard of living,' said her counsel Sally Harrison QC.

She was also employed by Ms Ainscow on £2,300-a-month. But she was forced to leave the home and her job when they split in 2009.

During the dissolution, Ms Roocroft alleges she was frozen out of the couple's jointly-acquired finances and her ex-partner subsequently misled the court as to the extent of the assets.

Miss Harrison said because of the misinformation about her wealth, her client was led to accept the 'modest' lump sum.

In July 2014 Judge Kevin Barnett, sitting at Chester County Court, threw out her bid to re-open her claim.

Ms Ainscow's company Artisan transformed flats, bars and restaurants on Canal Street, Manchester into a thriving gay village. She also opened up Manto one of Manchester's openly gay bars, before extending her property empire into other northern cities

The three Appeal Court judges are now analysing the case in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling that last year found in favour of two ex-wives who felt they had been duped by their wealthy ex-husbands

In granting leave to appeal Lady Justice Black said: 'I'm not aware of any similar case where the non-disclosure has been acted upon following the death of the other party.'

The three Appeal Court judges are now analysing the case in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling that last year found in favour of two ex-wives who felt they had been duped by their wealthy ex-husbands.

Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil reached agreements with their ex-husbands when they split.

However, both argued that the men had not revealed the true extent of their wealth, allowing them to get off with paying the women far less than what they were due.

Their ex-husbands disagreed, but in October last year Supreme Court justices ruled in favour of the women.

Ms Roocroft's solicitors Irwin Mitchell said: 'This is the latest in a long line of cases involving allegations of what the court refers to as "material non-disclosure".

Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil reached agreements with their ex-husbands when they split - but were granted permission to demand more after finding out they had lied about their wealth

'Just last year Irwin Mitchell also represented two wives - Varsha Gohil and Alison Sharland - who challenged their divorce settlements at the Supreme Court after their husbands were found to have misled them significantly regarding their wealth.

'The wives were successful in asking the Supreme Court to set aside their divorce settlements on the basis that their husbands were dishonest and deliberately misled them and the courts when they agreed their original divorce settlements.'

Richard Todd QC representing Ms Ainscow's estate, however, told three senior judges that the case revolved around Roocroft 'wrongly calling a friend a liar and a fraudster',

He said: 'Her plea is not really one of injustice, but rather one of misguided indignation.

'On her is a considerable evidential burden: an allegation of material non-disclosure is extraordinarily serious.

'It has many of the elements of fraud and is potentially very injurious of the reputation of the accused, especially in these days of open justice.'

Legal experts said last year's ruling in favour of Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil had the potential to 'open the floodgates', a prediction that already seems to have come true.

Last week a High Court judge analysed a claim by the former wife of a businessman who is a member of the family which founded the Screwfix hardware supplier.

Mr Justice Moylan heard that James Goddard-Watts and ex-wife Julia had reached an agreement six years ago following the end of their 13-year marriage.

Mr Goddard-Watts agreed that his ex-wife would get a house worth £3.25 million and a £4million lump sum.

But she subsequently complained that he had not revealed the full extent of his wealth.

Mr Justice Moylan analysed the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London but has yet to deliver a ruling.

Appeal judges analysed evidence in the Roocroft case at a hearing lasting about two hours.