CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5

A child suffered severe brain injury at birth due to clinical negligence, reducing her life expectancy to 29 years. The Supreme Court overruled Croke v Wiseman, holding that young children can recover 'lost years' damages for pecuniary losses during the years of life lost due to injury, subject to normal principles of proving loss.

Facts

The claimant (CCC) suffered severe spastic cerebral palsy caused by clinical negligence during her birth in 2015 at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals. The defendant admitted negligence. The claimant’s life expectancy was reduced to 29 years. She is entirely dependent on others and there is no prospect of improvement. The parties agreed that, but for her injuries, she would have had normal life expectancy, would have worked until age 68, and would have received a pension. Loss of earnings to age 29 was agreed at £160,000. The claimant sought additional ‘lost years’ damages for pecuniary losses during the period of reduced life expectancy.

Procedural History

At trial, both parties agreed the judge was bound by Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71, which held that lost years damages cannot be awarded to young children. Ritchie J declined to assess lost years damages but granted a leapfrog certificate for appeal directly to the Supreme Court to review the correctness of Croke v Wiseman.

Issues

The principal question was whether Croke v Wiseman is consistent with the earlier House of Lords decisions in Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd [1980] AC 136 and Gammell v Wilson [1982] AC 27, which established that damages for pecuniary losses during the lost years are recoverable in English law.

Judgment

Majority Decision (Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, Lord Burrows, Lord Stephens)

The Supreme Court (4-1) allowed the appeal and overruled Croke v Wiseman. Lord Reed, giving the lead judgment, held that Croke v Wiseman was inconsistent with both legal principle and the House of Lords authorities in Pickett and Gammell.

“The decision of the majority in Croke v Wiseman that no award for the lost years should be made where the claimant was a young child was based, as explained above, on the absence of dependants. That reasoning is inconsistent both with legal principle and with the relevant authorities.”

Lord Reed emphasised that there is no reason in legal principle why a claimant’s ability to obtain an award for their own pecuniary losses should depend on the existence of dependants. Pickett expressly rejected the proposition that lost years damages were confined to claimants with dependants.

“The principle of compensation which pervades the law of damages for tort ought apart from statutory modification or well-established authority to be consistently and uniformly applied.”

On the difficulty of assessment argument, Lord Reed held:

“Difficulty of assessment is no reason for awarding no damages or merely nominal damages… where it is clear that the claimant has suffered substantial loss – as the injured child undoubtedly has – but the evidence does not enable it to be precisely quantified, the court must assess damages as best it can on such evidence as is reasonably available.”

Lord Burrows, concurring, emphasised that the practice on proof of loss has developed significantly since Pickett and Gammell, with the use of actuarial tables (Ogden Tables) and sophisticated statistical evidence now being standard practice.

Lord Stephens stressed that judges have a duty to assess damages where a cause of action is established and loss sustained, emphasising the principle of full compensation.

Dissenting Judgment (Lady Rose)

Lady Rose dissented, arguing there is a principled distinction between adult claimants with evidence of individual characteristics and abilities, and young children where no such evidence exists. She argued that awarding lost years damages to young children would require courts to rely on assumptions based on gender, family background, and social class rather than evidence about the individual claimant, contradicting the fundamental tort principle that loss compensated must be the loss suffered by the individual claimant.

Implications

This decision establishes that:

• Lost years damages are in principle available to claimants injured during early childhood, provided the loss can be proved in accordance with normal principles
• The presence or prospect of dependants is not a necessary condition for lost years damages
• Courts must assess such claims as best they can using available evidence, including evidence of family background, educational attainment, and average earnings data
• Modern actuarial tools and sophisticated assessment methods have reduced the difficulties of calculating such awards

Lord Burrows noted that future consideration should be given to the fundamental justification for lost years damages and whether Pickett should be reconsidered by a larger court with full submissions.

The case was remitted to the trial judge for assessment of the claimant’s lost years damages.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71 overruled. The case was remitted to the trial judge for assessment of damages for the claimant’s lost years.

Source: CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (UKSC/2023/0111)