In February 2026, the Supreme Court handed down judgement in CCC (by her Mother and Litigation Friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust a judgement that held that a young child claimant is not barred from from claiming damages in respect of ‘lost years’, a landmark ruling in Birth Injury Negligence cases. Whether an award is made, depends on many factors as yet unknown. In this blog I explain in simple terms what this means for cases like ours.
‘Lost Years’ and Birth Injured Children
What is a ‘Lost Years’ claim?
Everyone would normally expect to have a reasonably long working life unless death or serious injury intervenes. Where someone suffers a serious injury through negligence which significantly reduces their life expectancy, they may be able to claim compensation for the earnings and pension they would have received during the years of life they have lost.
The principle was established in Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd (1980). For many years, however, children were excluded from making a ‘lost years’ claim following Croke v Wiseman (1982). This ruling has now been rejected by the Supreme Court.
This changed in February 2026, when the Supreme Court considered CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5. CCC suffered a severe hypoxic brain injury at birth, resulting in severe cerebral palsy and a substantially reduced life expectancy. The Supreme Court, by a majority of 4–1, overturned Croke and ruled that a young child can, in principle, recover damages for lost years in the same way as an older claimant. The case was sent back to the trial judge to decide whether an award should be made and, if so, how much.
This is an important development for children who have suffered a serious injury which reduces their life expectancy. It does not, however, mean that every child will automatically receive a lost-years award. The loss still has to be established according to the usual legal principles and will depend on the individual circumstances.
The calculation generally involves estimating the net earnings and pension the claimant would have received during the lost years, then deducting the claimant’s likely living expenses. Actuarial evidence, including the Ogden Tables, is normally used when calculating the value of future losses.
There is no fixed percentage deduction for living expenses. The appropriate deduction is fact-specific and will depend on the individual circumstances of the claim.
Because the Supreme Court judgment is so recent, the practical application of the ruling — including the assessment of individual awards — is still developing. Anyone whose child’s claim may involve a reduced life expectancy should discuss the possibility of a lost-years claim with their solicitor.
How ‘Lost Years’ are currently calculated
How these calculations will, in the future, apply to children has not yet been tested.
- Calculate net earnings factoring in promotions, pension contributions, risk factors and inflation.
- Actuarial evidence such as the Ogden Tables are used to factor in life expectancy, employment and the current discount rate* to calculate losses.
- Deduction of the Claimant’s Living Expenses. This calculates what the claimant would have spent on themselves to live, as those costs are not relevant if they are no longer here.
- The balance is the loss suffered by the Claimant during the lost years.
There is no specific percentage deduction. The deduction is fact-specific.
How this works for birth-injured children is not yet clear, but personally I think it is a fair ruling. It is also not yet clear how the ruling will apply to claims which arose before the Supreme Court judgement, or to cases which have already settled. The position may become clearer as further cases are considered.
If a child exceeds their life expectancy, the funds provided in certain areas will possibly run out, particularly where the claim has been settled on a percentage basis because the Trust has been found only partly responsible for the injury. In such cases, the overall award is reduced to reflect the percentage of liability accepted.
In reality, with careful management and ongoing care funded for life, there should currently be sufficient funds. Social services and NHS funding will also alleviate some of the financial burden. With this additional ‘pot’ carefully invested, it may provide some additional financial security and peace of mind for families.
Whether this ruling is applied retrospectively is yet to be clarified. Judicial law has changed, this is potentially very significant, but exactly how it will work in every situation is still developing. A lower court cannot overturn this decision, but Government legislation could.
*Read about the Discount Rate here:
Source: Judicial College Guidelines, GOV.UK / Ministry of Justice, case law, Supreme Court Website. This page was last reviewed on 31 August 2026. Legal, medical, and procedural information can change. Check the linked official sources and obtain advice about your own circumstances.
