When he arrived he came up to her, reached over her head and put a jug cord around her neck, pulling it tightly.
She scratched and pulled, trying to get the cord off.
Thomas pulled her face towards him using the cord and punched her, causing her to see stars.
He then hugged the victim and told her that he loved her and he knew she would come, as if nothing had happened.
Thomas appealed against his conviction in May, with defence lawyer Jock Blathwayt arguing the jury's verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge made errors in his summing up and allowed the Crown to amend the dates of the offending on the official charge statement. This led to a miscarriage of justice, he said.
He was critical of the way the case had been investigated and presented.
Mr Blathwayt said the inability of the woman to accurately say what day of the week she was attacked ought to have raised a reasonable doubt on its own.
He said no jug cord was recovered, no medical examination was done and the woman continued to stay with Thomas for the rest of the day.
The woman also told Thomas' sister, who asked about the marks on her neck, someone else caused them.
However at the trial, she said this was because Thomas was present and she was terrified.
The Court of Appeal ruling said the photographic evidence was high quality, taken on the day of the offending and showed a clear mark with broken skin on the woman's neck.
A photo taken two days later also showed extensive bruising to the woman's face.
The timing of the text messages were also consistent with the time of the meeting.
The court accepted there were grounds for criticism of the investigation and gaps in the Crown case but it wasn't unreasonable for the jury to believe the woman's account and when it happened.
It also agreed while Mr Blathwayt's closing address was understated in the trial judge's summary to the jury, it was clear to the jury how it was to approach the evidence and the directions on the burden and standard of proof were clear.
"We do not believe that a jury acting reasonably was required to find that a reasonable doubt existed. This ground of appeal therefore fails."
