“Lost years” claims by child claimants permitted by the Supreme Court

In CCC v. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Mr Justice Ritchie granted the claimants permission for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court on the issue of whether loss of earnings in the so called “lost years” could be recovered by a child.  The case came before the Supreme Court on 11 and 12 February 2025.

What are the “lost years”?

As a result of a shortened life expectancy, a claimant may suffer future financial losses. The issue before the Supreme Court was whether child claimants can claim for the loss of earnings they may suffer after their likely death (the so called “lost years”). 

Adult claimants

In both Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136  (“Pickett”) and Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC (“Gammell”) the House of Lords found that an adult claimant can recover damages for loss of “financial expectations” during the lost years.  

The House of Lords decided that these were pecuniary losses because the claimant had been deprived of the opportunity of distributing the income in the way they desired. The unfairness to dependents by not allowing recovery for income in the lost years was considered the principle social reason for permitting recovery. Recovery was possible regardless of the actual existence of dependents. The only caveat was that the loss should not be considered too remote to be measurable.

Child claimants

Whilst recovery of loss of earnings in the lost years has been permissible by adult claimants, recovery by child claimants has been barred since the decision of the Court of Appeal in Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71 as such claims were considered to be too speculative.

The Supreme Court's decision

In a decision handed down by Lord Reed, on 18 February 2026, the Supreme Court found by a majority of 4 to 1 (Lady Rose dissenting) that Croke v Wiseman was wrongly decided and that the claimant’s appeal should be allowed.

Lost years damages can now be recovered in cases where the claimant is a young child, just as they can in cases where the claimant is an adolescent or adult.

Reasons for the decision

• There was no principled basis for distinguishing between claimants with and without dependants: The majority (Lord Reed) held that lost years damages compensate the claimant for her own loss, not anyone else's. Her right to damages does not depend on how she might choose to use them or whether she has dependants. Whilst Parliament could make such distinctions for policy reasons, the courts must not create arbitrary categories based on the presence or absence of dependants.

• Speculation and assessment difficulties do not justify denying compensation: Damages are compensatory and intended to place a claimant in the position they would have been in but for the negligence. This principle applies equally to children and adults. The court cannot exclude recovery because of a claimant's age.

• Uncertainty is inherent in all future loss claims: Courts must do the best they can on the available evidence. 

• Courts routinely award damages to child claimants for loss of earnings during their lifetime: If this is possible, there is no principled reason why the same evidence and approach cannot be used to assess earnings during the lost years (with appropriate deductions for living expenses).

• Lack of concrete distinctions: If young children were excluded because their loss cannot be precisely quantified, it would be unclear where to draw the line between young children, older children, and adults, leading to arbitrary and incoherent distinctions.

Conclusion

The claimant’s case will be remitted to the Trial Judge to decide whether the claimant should be awarded lost years damages on the facts of her case and, if so, what the value of that award should be. Our specialist team for health and social care disputes will continue to monitor the case. There are reserving implications for insurers, local authorities and the NHS.