Child Claimants to Recover "Lost Years Damages" for Future Lost Earnings Caused by Medical Negligence

In the landmark ruling delivered by the Supreme Court on 18th February 2026 of CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the court decided that a child claimant can advance a claim for “lost years damages”.

This means that where negligence reduces a child’s life expectancy, the child can claim for income which they would probably have earned during the years they will not live as a result of the negligence. Crucially, the court concluded that a child should not be precluded from seeking compensation for lost income simply because their future career cannot be predicted with certainty or because they may never have dependents. 

Background to the case 

CCC was a young child who experienced a hypoxic brain injury during birth, which resulted in her developing severe cerebral palsy. As a result of her condition, she had a reduced life expectancy which was agreed by both parties as being 29 years of age.

The defendant admitted liability but quantum remained in dispute. Parties agreed a figure for lost earnings to age 29 and also agreed that the court was (at that point) unable to make an award for ‘lost years’ due to a previous decision from 1982, Croke v Wiseman.

The issue 

The claimants who represented CCC in this action argued that, because CCC would probably have gained qualifications and worked until age 68 had the negligence not occurred, the court should award damages for earnings which she would have received up to this point rather than calculating loss of earnings up to the age of 29 (her predicted life expectancy).

In support of their position, they submitted earnings evidence including proof of qualifications of various family members, arguing that she was from a hard-working family and would have followed a similar trajectory absent the negligence. The defendant’s rebuttal was premised on the argument that there should be no award made for lost years damages in cases where the claimant is a young child, on the basis that such loss is speculative and incapable of quantification.

The Court’s analysis

The court undertook a detailed review of prior case law in both the UK and other jurisdictions in considering whether the decision in Croke v Wiseman ought to be followed.  Ultimately it held that the reasoning in Croke v Wiseman was incorrect and overruled the decision which precluded child claimants from claiming for “lost years damages”.
 
In Croke, a distinction was drawn between an award for lost years for an adult claimant who it was considered (by the court) may require damages to support their dependents and young children who have no dependents.  

The Supreme Court held that such reasoning was inconsistent with both legal principles and with relevant authorities, and that there was no basis in law for drawing a distinction between claimants with or without dependants. It also observed that difficulties in calculating such damages ought  not to be a bar to  recoverability and that the court now has the benefit of a number of mechanisms for quantifying this head of loss. 

Drummond Miller Analysis 

We are pleased that in light of this recent decision, claimants (“pursuers” in Scotland) face the prospect of being properly compensated for the impact of a defender’s negligence.

In order to advance a claim for “lost years damages”, each pursuer and their legal team will require to present the most detailed evidence possible in support of the education and qualifications the pursuer would likely have achieved and the resulting employment trajectory, absent the life-shortening negligence. The more detail that can be provided to the court to enable a thorough assessment to be undertaken, the more realistic this aspect of the claim is likely to be.

If you or someone you know has experienced a birth injury and wishes to understand if they may have a potential claim for compensation, please get in touch with our experienced medical negligence team for a free, confidential discussion.