Justices rule that the earlier Court of Appeal decision was inconsistent with the House of Lords’ authority
The UK Supreme Court has ruled on whether a severely brain-injured child can recover damages for financial losses during the “lost years” of her shortened life expectancy.
In CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5, the court considered whether a long-standing Court of Appeal decision prevented young children from recovering pecuniary losses for years of life they would have enjoyed but for clinical negligence.
The claimant suffered a severe brain injury during her birth in 2015 as a result of admitted clinical negligence. She has been entirely dependent on others since birth and has no prospect of improvement. Her life expectancy is agreed to be 29. But for the injury, she would have had a normal lifespan, likely worked until 68 and received a pension thereafter.
At first instance, the parties agreed damages for loss of earnings to age 29, totalling £160,000. However, the trial judge declined to assess damages for earnings beyond that age. He held that he was bound by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Croke v Wiseman, which ruled that young children could not recover pecuniary losses for the lost years.
Recognising the importance of the issue, the High Court granted a leapfrog certificate, allowing a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
The central question before the justices was whether Croke v Wiseman was consistent with earlier House of Lords authorities, in particular Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd and Gammell v Wilson. Those cases established that adults with reduced life expectancy could recover damages for earnings lost during the years they would not live.
Delivering the leading judgment, Lord Reed examined whether there was a principled basis for distinguishing between adults and young children in this context. The court noted that the parties had been able to agree on projected earnings to age 29, based on evidence about the claimant’s family background and likely educational path. That agreement undermined arguments that losses in childhood cases are inherently too speculative to assess.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeal’s approach in Croke was inconsistent with the reasoning in Pickett and Gammell. The earlier House of Lords decisions had recognised that damages could reflect lost earning capacity, even where future earnings required estimation.
The ruling therefore removes the categorical bar that had prevented young children from recovering lost years damages. The assessment of such losses will depend on evidence and established principles, including deduction for personal living expenses.
The decision represents a significant development in damages law, clarifying that reduced life expectancy does not automatically preclude recovery for financial loss simply because the claimant was injured in early childhood.