In a decision handed down today in CCC v. Sheffield Teaching Hospitals [2026] UKSC 5 the Supreme Court has overturned Croke v. Wiseman and determined that child claimants can make valid lost years claims.
This is a short note because the result is as expected, and simply removes an illogical distinction between child and adult claimants. That said, it was not a unanimous decision, and there are hints of trouble ahead for lost years claims.
Where a tort reduces a claimant’s life expectancy, adult claimants have been able to claim for income that they would have received in the “lost years” but for the tort. Such claims have not been without controversy, but it has been settled for decades that they are valid (see Pickett v BRE [1980] AC 136 and Gammell v. Wilson [1982] AC27).
In Croke v. Wiseman [1982]1 WLR 71 the Court of Appeal effectively held that child claimants with no dependants could not bring a claim for loss in the lost years.
The illogicality of the distinction between adults and children has been the subject of criticism for some time, although the Court of Appeal have declined to contradict their own earlier decision in Croke. Child lost years claims have been settled rather than being allowed to proceed to the House of Lords/ Supreme Court, but in CCC the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to correct the oddity, and has done so.
Lady Rose dissented on the basis that assessing future loss for a child claimant is fraught with difficulty, requiring uncomfortable consideration of earning potential based on gender, family background and social class. Of course we consider those variables in relation to lost earnings claims for children all the time. Why should it be any different for a child whose life expectancy is reduced by an accident? Lady Rose’s answer to that is “that logic has always been an unreliable guide when applied to determining the proper boundaries of tortious compensation, particularly for economic loss which is what lost years earnings are” (para 170).
Lord Burrows (para 144) expresses the view that Pickett and Gammell should be reconsidered by a 7-judge panel of the Supreme Court. He points to 2 particular issues that might spell trouble for the status quo of lost years claims. The first (para 145) is that a claimant has not in fact suffered loss after death – they are not around to enjoy the money, and damages are supposed to be compensatory. The second (para 148) is that it might be considered appropriate to reinterpret Pickett to allow lost years claims but only as a means of compensating dependants.
For now:
- Lost years claims are available to all claimants regardless of their age at injury.
- The usual approach still applies: claims are limited to pecuniary loss, and must take account of saved living expenses.
For the Supreme Court judgment click here.
For the Supreme Court’s excellent 4-page summary press release, click here.
This article was written by Matthew White. Matthew is a specialist personal injury barrister who deals with all aspects of personal injury litigation, acting for both claimants and defendants.