CCC (by Her Mother and Litigation Friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2026] UKSC 5

Why It Matters

The decision removes a long‑standing barrier to full compensation for child victims, potentially increasing liability for healthcare providers and reshaping future medical negligence litigation.

Key Takeaways

• Supreme Court permits lost‑years damages for child claimants.
• Overrules Croak decision that barred compensation for young children.
• Dependence not required; damages compensate claimant’s own loss.
• Courts can use actuarial tables and statistical earnings data.
• Case may reshape future medical negligence awards for pediatric victims.

Summary

The Supreme Court heard CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, focusing on whether a child who suffers a life‑shortening injury can claim lost‑years damages for earnings and pension that she would have earned had she lived to a normal life expectancy.

By a majority, the Court overruled the Court of Appeal’s Croak decision, holding that dependence is irrelevant and that a child claimant is entitled to the same compensatory recovery as an adolescent or adult. The justices emphasized that damages aim to place the claimant in the position she would have occupied but for the negligence, and that speculative concerns do not justify denying compensation.

Lord Justice [Name] noted, “Damages are designed to compensate the claimant for her own loss, not anyone else’s,” and highlighted the growing use of actuarial tables, statistical earnings data, and family‑background evidence to quantify future loss even for very young victims. The parties had already quantified loss of earnings to age 29, demonstrating that the same methodology can extend beyond that point.

The ruling opens the door for broader recovery of lost‑years damages in pediatric negligence cases, prompting claimants and insurers to reassess exposure and evidentiary strategies. It signals a shift toward more equitable compensation for children whose future earnings potential was curtailed by medical malpractice.

Original Description

CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) (Appellant) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (Respondent)

Case ID: UKSC/2023/0111

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2023-0111.html

Judgment date: 18 February 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKSC 5

On appeal from [2023] EWHC 1770 (KB)

The claimant (and appellant), CCC, sustained a hypoxic brain injury during her birth. As a result, she has severe cerebral palsy and her life expectancy has been reduced to 29 years old. The defendant (and respondent) is the NHS Trust responsible for the management of the hospital where the claimant was born. It admits that it is responsible for the negligence which caused the claimant’s brain injury.

At trial, the parties agreed that, if the claimant had not been injured, she would have had a normal life expectancy. They also agreed that she would likely have gained GCSEs and other qualifications leading to paid employment, that she would have worked until the age of 68, and that she would have received a pension for the remainder of her life. The claimant’s loss of earnings to the age of 29 was agreed to be £160,000. This left the question of financial loss during her lost years.

The parties agreed that the trial judge was bound by the decision in Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71, in which the Court of Appeal held that lost years damages could not be recovered in cases where the claimant is a young child. The trial judge therefore granted the claimant a leap-frog certificate to appeal directly to the Supreme Court on this issue.

The issue is:

Can a young child claimant recover damages for financial loss caused by her inability to work during the years of expected life she has lost due to the defendant’s clinical negligence (“lost years damages”)?

By a majority of four to one, the Supreme Court allows the claimant's appeal.

More information is available on our website: