Reclaiming lost years for young children: CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

23/02/2026

By Jon Wong

The Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 delivered the long awaited answer to the question of whether damages for lost years could be awarded to young children, and specifically whether the refusal by the Court of Appeal in Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71 to award damages for lost years where the claimant was a young child, is consistent with the earlier decisions of the House of Lords in Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136 and Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27.

Pre-CCC: no lost years damages for young children

Lost years refers to the additional years of life which a claimant would have enjoyed had they not been injured, with damages for lost years being damages for future loss (the most substantial typically loss of earnings) after the claimant’s life expectation.

In Pickett, a case concerning a claimant who was a married man in his fifties with two children who had developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos at work, the House of Lords established that a Claimant could recover damages for loss of earnings during lost years. In Gammell, the House of Lords went a step further, deciding not only that damages for pecuniary losses during lost years are recoverable, but also that such damages could be sought after the victim’s death on behalf of their estate (which is now no longer the case following amendment to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934), allowing lost years damages for deceased victims aged 15 and 22.

However, in Croke v Wiseman, a claim brought on behalf of a child who had suffered a severe injury at age 21 months causing disability and reduced life expectancy, the Court of Appeal considered that an award for lost years could not be made.

Courts have long considered themselves bound by the decision in Croke v Wiseman and therefore have denied lost years damages where the claimant is a young child, creating a dubious inconsistency with the established ability of adult (and adolescent) claimants to recover lost years damages.

The claimant in CCC claimed lost income in her lost years from age 29 (the claimant’s life expectation) until normal retirement age. The parties agreed that Ritchie J was bound the decision of the Court of Appeal in Croke v Wiseman. Permission for a leapfrog appeal to the Supreme Court was then granted.

CCC: an award for lost years damages depends on available evidence

By a majority of 4:1 the Supreme Court overruled Croke v Wiseman.

The reasoning of the majority in broad terms is that the distinction between a young child and an adult or adolescent being able to recover lost years damages is not a principled one, and that the difficulty of assessing damages for lost years where the claimant is a young child is not itself a bar to recovery [58], [150], [154].

Whether lost years damages will be awarded to a young child and the quantum of such an award depends on the normal principles and practice of proving loss, with the conventional approach being the application of a multiplier (reflecting the number of lost years) to a multiplicand (reflecting the net annual loss after a rough and ready percentage reduction of the claimant’s probable living expenses).

The dissenting judgment by Lady Rose could be dissected and disagreed with, but for practical purposes the dissent along with the acknowledgment of ‘Smith v Manchester awards’ and ‘Blamire awards’ by Lord Burrows [122], serves as a reminder that future earnings capacity of a young child could be too speculative to work out a multiplicand.

The assessment of lost years damages in CCC was not considered too speculative—there was evidence of the occupations of the claimant’s mother and aunts, that the claimant came from a very hard-working family background, and that the claimant’s brother was doing well academically, planned to remain in the sixth form at school and hoped to read law at university.

For very young claimants, typically lacking any education or occupation, evidence of educational attainment and occupations of their family or those most comparable to them is key to demonstrating their future earnings capacity.

The future of lost years damages

The reasoning behind lost years damages expounded in Pickett and Gammell was not in question on appeal. Lord Reed and Lord Burrows appeared troubled with the more fundamental question of whether lost years damages are intended to compensate for the immediate diminution in the claimant’s earning capacity (at the time of injury), or to compensate future (after the claimant’s life expectation) pecuniary loss (of the then deceased’s dependants). Both expressed the desire for the issue to be clarified [5], [144].

Lord Reed at times appeared to be a proponent of the former, making reference to jurisdictions where the loss suffered by an injured claimant is viewed as the diminution in the value of a capital asset of the claimant [43]-[45], [55]. Such conceptualisation would likely mean that lost years damages for very young claimants lives on, regardless of the presence or prospect of dependants, albeit possibly under a different term of expression with little differentiation between losses pre and post life expectation.

Lord Burrows appears to be a proponent of the latter, expressing unease in treating a claimant as an objective capital asset whose earning capacity has been diminished by injury [147], whilst also highlighting difficulties in awarding lost years damages if it is to be viewed as compensating future pecuniary loss [145, 149]. Such conceptualisation would almost certainly spell the end of lost years damages for very young claimants, and one might speculate as to whether this would spell the end of lost years damages altogether.