In a landmark case, the Supreme Court handed down judgment on CCC (her mother and litigation friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The ruling in February 2026 now means that child claimants should not be excluded from making claims for lost earnings where their life expectancy has been reduced by injuries caused by medical negligence – these are known as ‘lost years damages’.

Background on The Case

The case revolves around a child named CCC (anonymised by the court for her privacy), who suffered a hypoxic brain injury during her birth in 2015. As a result, the injuries meant that her life expectancy has been reduced to just 29 years.

The medical negligence claim was brought on the claimant’s behalf by her mother against Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which runs the hospital where the claimant was born. It accepted responsibility for the negligence that caused the claimant’s injury and recognised that, had the negligence not occurred, CCC was likely have had a normal life expectancy, finished school, entered paid employment, and worked until retirement age.

The claimant’s overall loss of earnings to the age of 29 was agreed to be £160,000. This left the question of financial loss during her lost years.

Prior to CCC v Sheffield, ‘lost years’ claims were only available to adolescent and adult claimants who suffered life-shortening personal injuries. However, since the Court of Appeal’s decision in Croke v Wiseman [1982], it was ruled that claims relating to children were too uncertain or speculative as the child had no established career history.

This ruling meant that the trial judgment was bound by the decision and could not award CCC any ‘lost years’ damages. He therefore granted a leapfrog certificate, which enabled the claimant to appeal directly to the Supreme Court. In her appeal, the claimant argued that Croke should be overruled because it is inconsistent with earlier House of Lords authority in Pickett and Gammell and with the fundamental principles underpinning the assessment of damages in personal injury claims.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The key question in the appeal was whether the Court of Appeal’s decision in Croke is inconsistent with Pickett and Gammell. All five members of the Supreme Court agreed with the following propositions:

1. Pickett established, and Gammell confirmed, that damages for financial loss during the lost years are recoverable in English law;
2. Pickett and Gammell do not restrict lost years damages to claimants who have, or may in future have, dependants;
3. Lost damages are, in principle, available to claimants who were injured during early childhood, provided that they can prove their loss in accordance with normal principles.
As a result, in a majority decision of four to one, the Supreme Court overturned Croke v Wiseman.

The Court held that there should be no distinction between adult and child claimants when considering entitlement to ‘lost years’ damages. It also confirmed that claimants do not need to prove they would have had children or financial dependants in later life for damages to be recoverable.

The case is now set to return to the High Court for an assessment of damages in light of the new legal ruling.

The decision brings an end to four decades of disparity that prevented children with life-limiting injuries from recovering damages on the same grounds as adults. It is expected to have wide-ranging implications for medical negligence and personal injury cases involving children whose life expectancy has been reduced.

The Supreme Court has clarified that lost future earnings should be assessed according to established principles, regardless of age. For families affected, the judgment provides clarity and the potential for more thorough compensation assessments that better reflect the lifelong impact the harm has had.