The landmark Supreme Court judgment on 18 February 2026 regarding “Lost Years” is a momentous decision for child Claimants who have had their life expectancy reduced due to negligence. Until now, such child Claimants have not been able to claim for these lost years, unlike with claims brought by adults and adolescents.

The practical effect of this is that, for child Claimants, their claim for future loss of earnings would stop at the point of their life expectancy due to the negligence, even though the life expectancy would have been higher had it not been for the negligence. Meanwhile, for adults and adolescents, they could claim a future loss of earnings on the basis of what their life expectancy would have been, had it not been for the negligence.

Whilst this was previously justified on the basis of calculating such a future loss of earnings for a child Claimant being too speculative, it always felt unfair and unjust for child Claimants to be penalised for having a shortened life expectancy, rather than penalising those who caused the reduction in life expectancy in the first place.

This important decision stems from the case of CCC -v- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. In the original claim, the Claimant (CCC) was deprived of oxygen prior to her birth, resulting in a severe hypoxic brain injury. The Defendant, namely the Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, accepted negligence at the time of CCC’s birth. It was found that her life expectancy has been reduced to 29 years.

The claim went to trial in 2023 to assess the financial value of the claim, known as quantum; the aim of such compensation is to put the injured party in the position, so far as possible, as if the negligence had not happened. This therefore involves looking at what life would have been like for CCC, absent the negligence. At trial, it was established that, had there been no negligence at the time of her birth, she would have had a normal life expectancy, expected to achieve her GCSEs and other qualifications which would have led to paid employment until the age of retirement (i.e. 68 years of age).

At the time of the trial, it was established she would be awarded compensation for loss of earnings up to age 29 (her current life expectancy); after the age of 29 however, CCC was let down by the law, as the trial judge was bound by an earlier decision made at the Court of Appeal in Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71 (“Croke”). In Croke, the Court of Appeal decided that lost year’s damages could not be recovered in cases where the Claimant is a child, in spite of the reduction in life expectancy being due to negligence.

Whilst acknowledging that the trial judge’s hands were tied by Croke, CCC sought permission at the trial to appeal the earlier decision regarding lost years, which was

granted. Permission was granted to leapfrog the Court of Appeal, which would have typically heard such an appeal, allowing the Claimant to appeal this directly to the Supreme Court for consideration to overrule the decision in Croke.

The appeal

The appeal, as lodged with the Supreme Court in February 2026, argued that the decision made in Croke was inconsistent with two previous House of Lords’ decisions (the House of Lords is the final court of appeal for all civil cases) namely Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136 (“Pickett”) and Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27 (“Gammell”). These cases established that lost years damages are recoverable in English law. These cases determined that lost years damages could be awarded to adolescents and adults who have suffered injuries affecting their life expectancy and it was argued that the case of Croke could not be reconciled with these decisions from a higher Court.

The case was put before all 5 Supreme Court members and following extensive deliberation, they have determined that:

1. Pickett established, and Gammell confirmed, that damages for financial loss during the lost years are recoverable in English law.
2. Pickett and Gammell do not restrict lost years damages to claimants who have, or may in future have, dependants.
3. Lost years damages are, in principle, available to claimants who were injured during early childhood, provided that they can prove their loss in accordance with normal principles.

In Croke, the Court of Appeal held that lost years could not be recovered because the child Claimants did not and would not have dependents and the speculative nature of calculating any loss. However, The Supreme Court members confirmed that this is inconsistent with Pickett and Gammell and therefore should be overruled. The Lords expressed that “Lost years damages are designed to compensate the claimant for her own loss, not anyone else’s, and the claimant’s right to damages does not depend on how she might choose to use them”. Lord Burrows agreed confirming that “if lost years damages could only be awarded to claimants with dependants, some adults’ claims would also be barred”.

Lady Rose was the only member of the Supreme Court to disagree with the appeal. She had agreed with the Lords in that a claim for lost years damages can be made regardless of whether the claimant has any dependants; however, she considered that a young child Claimant should not be able to recover lost years damages if there is no evidence before the Court about the child’s earning capacity or individual characteristics (which is something she considers adults can prove). Lady Rose expressed that this pushes the Court into uncomfortable territory

What does this mean?

Although Lady Rose disagreed with the other Lords that children should be able to claim for lost years, the Supreme Court runs on a majority vote. The judgment (decision) was 4 – 1 and holds that the lost years damages can be recovered in cases where the Claimant is a young child in the same way as for adolescents and adults. They confirm that Croke should be overruled.

The Claim of CCC -v- Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has therefore been sent back to the original trial judge (from 2023) to decide whether the CCC should be awarded lost years damages on the facts of her case and, if so, what the value of that award should be.

This therefore means that, in all future cases relating to children whose injuries result in a reduced life expectancy can pursue a claim for lost years damages when bringing their claim before the courts. Whether individual Claimants (CCC included) are entitled to lost year damages will be decided on a case by case basis but the decision at the very least opens a door that was previously closed. This could therefore mean that future loss of earnings for these claims could lead to the NHS paying out a significant amount more in compensation than would have previously been the case. Whilst this of course does not undo the wrongs suffered by Claimants, it goes some way to readdress the balance and ensure that the system of assessing compensation produces a fair and just outcome.