CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026]

CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 is a notable case where the Supreme Court held that a child claimant could recover damages for financial loss expected during the lost years of his life. The lost years is the period he would have lived and worked he not suffered life-shortening injuries due to negligence. As a result, children can now claim damages for the years of life shortened due to medical negligence.

CCC suffered severe brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation during her birth in 2015, which the defendant NHS Trust admitted was due to its negligence. As a result, her life expectancy was reduced to 29 years. It was agreed that, if she had not been injured, she would likely have completed her education, obtained employment, worked until retirement age, and earned income. The parties agreed that her loss of earnings up to age 29 was £160,000, but the dispute concerned whether she could recover damages for earnings she would have made during the additional years she would have lived but for the negligence.

The legal background was shaped by earlier House of Lords decisions in Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] and Gammell v Wilson [1980], which established that claimants could recover lost years damages for financial loss caused by reduced life expectancy. However, the Court of Appeal in Croke v Wiseman [1982] had held that young children could not recover such damages, largely on the basis that they did not have dependants and that their future earnings were too speculative. The trial judge in CCC’s case followed Croke, but the claimant appealed directly to the Supreme Court, arguing that Croke was inconsistent with the earlier House of Lords authorities.

By a majority of four to one, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and overruled Croke. The Court held that lost years damages are recoverable by child claimants in principle, just as they are for adults and adolescents. The majority emphasised that lost years damages compensate the claimant’s own financial loss, not the loss of dependants, and therefore there was no principled basis for denying such damages simply because the claimant was a child. The Court reaffirmed that the fundamental purpose of damages in negligence is to place the claimant in the position they would have been in if the negligence had not occurred. This principle applies equally regardless of the claimant’s age.

The majority rejected the argument that assessing lost years damages for young children was too speculative. They explained that courts routinely assess future losses that involve uncertainty, even for adult claimants. Although predicting a child’s future earnings involves contingencies, courts can rely on evidence such as statistical earnings data, family background, educational prospects, and actuarial tools such as the Ogden tables. The Court held that evidential uncertainty should not prevent compensation where it is clear that the claimant has suffered a real financial loss. Excluding children from such claims would also create arbitrary distinctions and undermine the compensatory purpose of tort law.

Lady Rose dissented. She accepted that lost years damages do not depend on whether a claimant has dependants, but she considered that claims by very young children raised distinct difficulties. She argued that courts lack sufficient individual evidence about a young child’s abilities and future earning capacity, and relying on statistical averages risks unfairness and undermines the principle that damages should compensate the individual claimant’s actual loss. She also expressed concern about the policy implications, including the increased financial burden on NHS defendants.

The Supreme Court therefore held that young children are not barred from recovering lost years damages and that Croke v Wiseman was wrongly decided. The case was remitted to the trial judge to determine, on the evidence, whether CCC should receive lost years damages and the appropriate amount. The decision is significant because it removes the previous legal restriction on child claimants and confirms that they are entitled, in principle, to full compensation for financial losses caused by a reduction in life expectancy.