Supreme Court Allows Children to Claim Lost Years Damages

Jodi Newton

Landmark Supreme Court ruling: children can now claim lost years compensation for medical negligence

On 18 February 2026 judgment was handed down in the case of CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Child claimants will now be able to claim compensation for earnings that they would have earned, but for the injuries that have reduced their life expectancy. This is known as a “lost years” claim.

What the Supreme Court decided

In a majority (4:1) decision, the Supreme Court justices held that a child can recover lost years damages for the income they would have earned during the years of life which have been lost as a result of the negligence. The ruling overturns the 1981 decision of Croke v Wiseman which created an anomaly by which children would not be compensated for their lost years, while adults with a reduced life expectancy would be.

The case concerns a girl known as CCC who suffered a severe hypoxic brain injury around the time of her birth, leaving her with cerebral palsy and a life expectancy shortened to around age 29. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust admitted negligence. The High Court awarded CCC damages of approximately £6.8 million with additional annual care costs for life. CCC’s legal team argued that she should be compensated for her lost years earnings . Since the High Court was bound by the 1981 Court of Appeal authority, Croke v Wiseman, those damages were not awarded. However, permission was given to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.

What Are “Lost Years” Damages?

Until now, there has been an illogical distinction in the calculation of damages awards for claimants who have sustained injuries that reduce life expectancy. Adults have been able to claim for the earnings that they would have been able to accrue, but children have been prevented from doing so.

The entitlement to “lost years” damages was recognised for adults in the 1978 House of Lords decision in Pickett v British Rail Engineering. In that case, a 51 year old man with the lung disease, mesothelioma, was allowed to claim income he would have earned. This resulted in a claim for earnings loss calculated to what would have been his normal retirement age, had he remained uninjured.

Croke v Wiseman was decided just 3 years later. However, in that case, the Court of Appeal decided that a seven year old boy with a significantly reduced life expectancy could not recover lost years damages. The court reasoned that it was too speculative and difficult to predict a child’s future earnings.

This disparity between adult and child claimants has continued for decades. An adult injured in their 30s with a reduced life expectancy could claim for lost years, yet a child seriously injured at birth with the same prognosis could not, even if this resulted in them being under-compensated with a financial impact on the family that was more severe.

Lord Reed, giving the leading judgment in CCC, stressed that there was no sound legal principle for denying a child lost years compensation. He emphasised that the court’s task remains to award fair and just damages based on the best evidence available. Judges already deal with uncertainty when valuing future losses in clinical negligence cases. The difficulty of assessing a child’s future earnings was not a sound reason to treat assessment of a child’s compensation differently to that of an adult claimant.

A Turning Point for Seriously Injured Children

This ruling has immediate consequences for severely injured children, with reduced life expectancies. As with CCC, the decision is likely to be particularly important in birth injury cases. Those claimants can now ask the court to value the income they would have earned during the life years that have been lost. Those lost years earnings will now form part of the total damages award.

For families, this can make a substantial difference. In CCC’s case, her legal team assess the value of her lost years claim at over £800,000 based on projected earnings during her working life and retirement. That figure that would be payable in addition to the substantial sums already awarded for lifelong care, specialist equipment and other needs. This will be a relief to parents worried about the long term financial security of a child who will never have the chance to earn and save in the way their peers might have done.

Jodi Newton, head of birth injury and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, said:

“This is a monumental ruling for the many children and young people left with serious and life-changing injuries as a result of medical negligence. The Supreme Court has today corrected a legal anomaly that has existed for over 40 years.”

“Specialist lawyers, acting for families of children with brain injuries suffered at birth, have stood frustrated and aggrieved by the limitations created by the previous judgment on this issue. We are delighted that the Supreme Court has made this important finding and transformed the law on behalf of the vulnerable children and families we represent.”

For families considering a medical negligence claim, the ruling reinforces the importance of taking specialist advice, particularly where a child has a reduced life expectancy as a result of their injury. Expert legal teams will now be able to explore lost years damages alongside other heads of loss and build cases that more justly reflect the financial impact on a child’s future.

How can we help with Lost Years claims?

At Osbornes Law, we specialise in birth injury and paediatric negligence claims, supporting families through the most challenging circumstances. Our dedicated team has a proven track record of securing life-changing compensation for children with complex needs, ensuring they receive the care, therapy, and security they deserve. If your child has suffered an injury due to medical negligence, contact Osbornes Law today for expert advice and compassionate support. Contact us by:

• Filling in our online enquiry form; or
• Calling us on 020 7485 8811