Claims for “Lost Years” damages: one door closes and the child gate opens

Summary

On 18 February 2026, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in CCC (by her Mother and Litigation Friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. By a majority, the Court allowed the Claimant’s appeal and held that a young child claimant can recover damages in respect of her “lost years”, overruling Croke v Wiseman.

What is a ‘lost years’ claim?

The House of Lords’ decision in Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] established that an adult whose life expectancy has been reduced by a defendant’s negligence can recover damages to reflect the financial benefit (earnings and pension) they would have received had their life expectancy not been so reduced. That principle was confirmed in Gammell v Wilson [1982].

Lost years damages are commonly awarded in cases involving adult and adolescent claimants. However, they have not historically been awarded to young child claimants because, in Croke v Wiseman [1982], the Court of Appeal held that such claims were too speculative and the fact that a child claimant had no dependants, and would never have dependants, should be a bar to recovery.

Facts and appeal

The Claimant suffered a hypoxic brain injury at birth. Liability was admitted. The parties agreed that:

• her life expectancy had been reduced to 29 years, whereas she would otherwise have enjoyed a normal life expectancy; and
• she would likely have obtained GCSEs and other qualifications, entered paid employment, worked until normal retirement age (68), and received a pension thereafter.

The trial judge accepted that he was bound by Croke. A leapfrog appeal was granted directly to the Supreme Court, where the Claimant argued that Croke should be overruled.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court was asked whether a young child can recover damages for loss of earnings and pension in the years she would have lived had her life expectancy not been reduced by the defendant’s negligence, and whether Croke was consistent with Pickett and Gammell.

By a majority, the Court held that lost years damages are recoverable by young children, just as they are by adolescents and adults.

The Court rejected the requirement that a claimant must have dependants. That was inconsistent with legal principle and with Pickett and Gammell. Lost years damages compensate the claimant for her own pecuniary loss, and entitlement does not depend on how those damages might be used. On that basis, the reasoning in Croke was incorrect.

The defendant argued that Croke should nevertheless be upheld on the alternative basis that lost years claims by young children are too speculative. The majority rejected that submission, finding that:

• the compensatory principle applies equally to claimants whether injured as young children or as adults;
• difficulty in quantification does not justify denying compensation; the court must do the best it can on the available evidence;
• developments in actuarial and statistical evidence reduce the force of the speculation argument;
• courts routinely assess future loss for child claimants who are unable to work; and
• excluding young children would create an arbitrary and unprincipled dividing line.

Having established the principle, the case has been remitted to the trial judge for damages for the claimant’s lost years to be assessed.

Implications

For adult claimants, lost years damages were already recoverable, but Croke provided scope to resist such claims if the claimant had no dependants. That door has now been firmly closed.

More significantly, the decision unlatches the child gate. Lost years claims by children injured at birth or in early infancy, previously excluded as a matter of law, are now available in principle. The valuation of such claims will no doubt give rise to significant dispute in many cases.

For defendants faced with such claims, most notably the NHS, this represents a significant expansion of financial exposure, although the question of whether there is a loss in the individual case, and the quantification of that loss, will turn upon the facts of the case and the evidence adduced. The loss will still need to be proven.