On 18 February 2026, the Supreme Court handed down its highly anticipated landmark judgment in the ‘leapfrog’ appeal in the case of CCC (by her Mother and Litigation Friend MMM) (Appellant) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent) [2026] UKSC 5 on appeal from UKSC 2023 / 0111] (CCC). It allowed the claimant’s appeal and overruled the previous case law to permit child claimants whose life expectancy has been reduced by alleged negligence to recover damages for future loss of earnings (‘lost years’ claims).
Background
In the case of CCC, the child claimant suffered a severe brain injury at birth and as a result is not expected to live beyond the age of 29. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust accepted responsibility for the negligence which caused the brain injury and consequent reduction in the claimant’s life expectancy. The parties agreed the claimant’s loss of earnings to age 29, her anticipated date of death. The defendant trust also accepted that if the claimant were uninjured she would have worked until age 68.
The claimant argued that she should also be allowed to recover damages for loss of earnings for the period between their current estimated date of death and their estimated date of death absent the negligence (the period of ‘lost years’). The defendant trust argued that such loss is too speculative to quantify where the claimant is a young child.
Previous legal position
It was established by the House of Lords decision in Pickett v British Rail Engineering (1980) that adults whose life expectancy has been reduced due to negligence can recover damages for the ‘lost years’.
However, since the decision in Croke v Wiseman (1982), child claimants were unable to recover future loss of earnings where their life expectancy has been reduced by negligence. This was on the basis that ‘lost years’ claims by children are speculative and they are unlikely to have dependants.
There have been several unsuccessful attempts to overturn this decision, but CCC is the first case to have reached the Supreme Court. In those other cases the Court of Appeal was bound by its own precedent in Croke (it is for that reason that a ‘leapfrog’ appeal was necessary in CCC). The Court of Appeal considered the issue in Iqbal v Whipps Cross University Hospital NHS Trust (2007) where the defendant’s appeal against a ‘lost years’ award was successful. The Court of Appeal commented that although the (then) House of Lords decision in Pickett did not restrict a claim for lost years to adults with dependants, there were references in Pickett to the difficulty of proving future loss of earnings for a young child in the context of a ‘lost years’ claim.
The Supreme Court judgment in CCC
The Supreme Court delivered a majority judgment in CCC which overruled Croke v Wiseman. It stated that damages in tort are designed to compensate claimants for their own loss (not anyone else’s loss) Whether a claimant has dependants or not is irrelevant and there is no basis in law for drawing a distinction between claimants with and without dependants. The Supreme Court therefore concluded the reasoning in Croke v Wiseman was incorrect.
The Supreme Court provided five reasons for rejecting the defendant trust’s argument that child claimants should not be able to recover damages for the ‘lost years’ because such claims are too speculative:
- Damages in tort are intended to put claimants back in the position they would have been in but for the negligence. This key principle applies equally to adults and child claimants.
- It is not always possible to quantify future loss of earnings with precision in claims by children due to the speculative nature of losses which are subject to many contingencies. However, this is always true, even for adult claimants, and the court takes into account this uncertainty and assesses quantum as best it can on the available evidence. The fact the negligence occurred when the claimant was a child, increasing the difficulties of proof, should not be allowed to deprive the child of compensation.
- The use of actuarial tables to discount awards for early receipt and statistics on average earnings as a guide, and evidence about the occupations the claimants’ parents and qualifications and prospects of uninjured siblings, to calculate future loss of earnings now all assist the court’s quantification of this head of loss.
- The courts routinely award damages to child claimants for loss of earnings during their lifetime. If it is possible for courts to assess child claimants’ lifetime loss of earnings it is difficult to see why the courts cannot assess financial loss in respect of the ‘lost years’ based on the same evidence.
- If young children are to be prevented from recovering damages for the ‘lost years’ it is unclear where the line should be drawn between claims by young children and claims by older children and adults.
Impact of the decision in CCC
The Supreme Court’s judgment in CCC has provided clarity on the recoverability of ’lost years’ claims by children and the basis of calculation of quantum in such claims. However, defendants will now face claims by children for increased compensation in the future and it will therefore be crucial to interrogate the available evidence on this point to challenge where indicated what may be a significant claim for damages for the ‘lost years’.
