Will I be compensated for my “lost years”? Supreme Court clarifies damages for young children

Introduction

The Supreme Court’s decision in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has set a landmark precedent which allows infants and young children, in claims arising from negligence, to recover damages for “lost years” where life expectancy has been reduced as a result of negligence.

For many years, Croke v Wiseman was the authority in this area, and acted as a significant barrier here, effectively preventing injured infants and young children outright from recovering future earnings in the years lost to negligence on the basis that there were simply too many uncertainties around quantification. However, in one of the most important developments in this area for some time, Croke v Wiseman has finally been overturned, and this barrier has fallen.

What does “lost years” mean?

The term “lost years” refers to the period of life that a person would have enjoyed if not for a shortened life expectancy arising from negligence.

In such claims, it is well established that compensation can be sought for income that would have been earned from different sources during these years, with the sum awarded to be reduced by the amount that the individual would have spent on everyday living costs. In essence, the claim is for the estimated savings from those lost years, which could have been left to others in a will, with a reduction to reflect the living expenses that would have been incurred.

Why were young children previously excluded?

Whilst the principle of a “lost years” claim is well established for claims involving adults, where the Court has a solid base of data – i.e. education, employment history, earning patterns – on which to analyse and determine any anticipated future loss of earnings, the Courts have generally, until now, taken a different approach for claims involving infants or young children. Indeed, with infants and young children who have not yet commenced their education and careers, there is no such data available on which to base the calculation, and the Courts have generally been unwilling to speculate as to what a career may have looked like.

As a result, traditionally per Croke v Wiseman, very young children with reduced life expectancy arising from negligence were unable to recover damages for the “lost years”. This created a barrier and tension in the law; the younger the child at the time of injury, the harder it was to recover compensation for the financial consequences of a shortened life.

The issue before the Supreme Court

In CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the Claimant suffered a catastrophic brain injury at birth as a result of admitted clinical negligence. Her life expectancy was significantly shortened.

The matter was originally head in the High Court in 2023. Whilst the Claimant recovered damages for earnings which it was anticipated would be lost during her lifetime due to negligence, the trial judge felt bound by Croke v Wiseman to refuse any award for earnings she would have generated had she lived a normal lifespan.

In February 2026, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether that rule was correct.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

By a majority of four to one, the Supreme Court held that that the previous law on this point was not correct.

The Supreme Court made clear that the recoverability of a lost years claim should depend on evidence, not on the Claimant’s age at the time of injury, and firmly rejected arguments that compensation should be denied to children due to the perceived difficulty or uncertainty in calculating their lost earnings; indeed, the point was made that Judges routinely assess future losses on the basis of rational, evidence-based estimates, utilising statistical tools such as Ogden multipliers and national earnings data when individual information is limited.

The Supreme Court also emphasised that uncertainty caused by negligence cannot excuse a defendant from liability; modern assessment methods ensure fair evaluation without resorting to arbitrary reductions, especially regarding deductions for living expenses.

Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed outdated policy arguments, notably those from Croke v Wiseman, and reaffirmed the fundamental principle that damages should compensate for what has genuinely been lost, ensuring a fairer and more principled approach for all Claimants, regardless of age.

What does this mean for Claimants?

In practical terms, CCC has changed the landscape when it comes to assessing future loss of earnings claims for infants and young children: –

• Lost years earnings must now be pleaded and evidenced in appropriate child cases.
• The focus will shift to assumptions, statistical evidence and appropriate deductions, rather than artificial bars to recovery.
• Defendants will no longer be able to rely on age alone to defeat substantial claims.

Conclusion

The decision in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals is a long‑overdue correction. It restores coherence to the law, aligns damages assessment with principle, and ensures that the most vulnerable claimants are not denied justice because of the timing of their injury.

It has been a long wait, however, for injured children and their families, it represents a legal victory.