PI Brief Update

Supreme Court revives 'lost years' claims by young child claimants: CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 - Michael Brooks Reid, Temple Garden Chambers

25/03/26. On 18 February 2026, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark judgment on the recoverability of “lost years” damages by young child claimants. By a majority of four to one, the Court overruled the Court of Appeal’s decision in Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71 (“Croke”), which had barred such claims for nearly half a century.

Facts

The claimant, CCC, suffered a severe hypoxic brain injury during her birth in 2015, resulting in severe spastic cerebral palsy. The defendant NHS Trust admitted clinical negligence. At trial before Ritchie J, the parties had agreed that CCC’s life expectancy was reduced to 29 years, and that but for her injury she would have gained qualifications, worked in a similar line to her mother or aunts until 68, and received a pension. Lifetime loss of earnings to age 29 was agreed at £160,000.

The claimant also pleaded £823,506 in respect of “lost years” damages, the pecuniary losses attributable to the years of life the defendant’s negligence had taken from her.

It was common ground that Ritchie J was bound by Croke to dismiss that head of loss, but given the conflicting authorities on the general principle, he granted a leapfrog certificate direct to the Supreme Court.

Legal Background

The recoverability of lost years damages was authoritatively established by the House of Lords in Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136 and confirmed in Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27.

In Pickett, four of the five Law Lords had expressly rejected any requirement for a claimant to have dependants to recover such damages.

In Croke, however, the Court of Appeal held that lost years damages could not be awarded to a young child. Griffiths LJ reasoned that a catastrophically injured child had no dependants and little prospect of ever having them, so the “compelling social reasons” underpinning Pickett were absent. Shaw LJ, while acknowledging a “philosophical anomaly”, agreed. Lord Denning MR dissented on yet broader grounds, refusing even lifetime earnings award to young children as too speculative.

Croke was criticised in Iqbal v Whipps Cross University NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 1190, where the Court of Appeal considered it inconsistent with Pickett and Gammell but considered itself bound by it. That case settled before reaching the Supreme Court.

The Decision

Lord Reed (with whom Lord Briggs agreed) delivered the leading judgment, with concurring judgments from Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens. Lady Rose dissented.

The majority held Croke wrongly decided on two grounds.

First, conditioning lost years damages on the existence of dependants is irreconcilable with...

Image: public domain from https://pixabay.com/en/neurons-brain-cells-brain-structure-440660/

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...