The Supreme Court has ruled that children whose life expectancy was reduced by birth injury negligence are entitled to compensation for their lost years. The change comes following CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and represents a major development in personal injury and medical negligence law.
What is a Lost Years Claim?
Lost years claims are personal injury or medical negligence claims made by a living claimant whose life expectancy has been reduced. Compensation allows them to recover damages for wages they would have earned in the time they are deemed to have lost (such as in Pickett v British Rail Engineering Ltd).
Previously, English law prevented child claimants from claiming compensation. This was ruled in 1982 following the landmark Croke v Wiseman appeal, in which the Court held that calculating lost earnings for children was too speculative compared to that for adults and adolescents.
In overturning Croke v Wiseman on 18 February 2026, the Supreme Court have levelled the playing field for child claimants. It is no longer exclusively adults and adolescents who can claim lost years compensation for any personal injury or medical negligence and the ensuing loss of income they have suffered.
How Are These Claims Changing for Children?
In CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, the claimant suffered a severe hypoxic brain injury at birth, causing cerebral palsy and shortening their life expectancy to 29 years. If this had not happened, the Court ruled that they would have gone on to enjoy a normal life expectancy, obtain qualifications, work until retirement age and get a pension.
CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust prompted the Court to reconsider the age at which a claimant’s lost earnings would cease to become too speculative. It found that there is no basis in law for treating injured children’s claims differently from those of older claimants because:
- There was no reason to distinguish between claimants with and without dependents
- Speculation and assessment difficulties do not justify denying compensation
- Uncertainty is inherent in all future loss claims
- Children could already claim loss of earnings outside of the lost years
- There is no concrete distinction between young children, older children and adults
Now, to successfully bring a lost years claim, a claimant of any age must prove that the injuries caused by the index event have reduced their life expectancy. Damages are calculated based on the net income the claimant would have earned during their lost years. For children, this amounts to a full working life.
As a result, a lost years claim for children will require much more detailed financial and actuarial analysis than before. The assessment will likely consider loss of income:
- Up to the new life expectancy age
- Between the new life expectancy age and retirement age
- For the likely duration of retirement
In order to properly quantify this claim and advise the Court on compensation amounts, we consider:
- Likely educational and career trajectory
- Potential earnings progression
- Pension scheme type and structure
- State pension
- Retirement age assumptions
- Income and lump sum outcomes at the point of, and during, retirement
Paladin’s Approach to Birth Injury Negligence and Lost Years
As CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has shown, these claims cannot be realistically assessed using contributions alone. To properly reflect the financial reality, pension loss must be considered on an ‘at retirement’ basis, meaning we:
- Project pension build-up to the point of ‘but for’ retirement
- Assess the resulting retirement income and lump sum entitlement
- Value the claim benefits in the same way as lost earnings
When managing claims for young claimants with no defined career path, Paladin typically advocates a hybrid pension methodology, drawing on both defined benefit pension structures and contribution outcomes. Using the most recent pension participation data from the Office of National Statistics, we value compensation as realistically as possible. This produces a fair framework for assessing lost years pension claims, particularly where the Court is asked to value inherently speculative future financial trajectories.
The ‘at retirement’ methodology is also the only one that provides litigators with consistency when calculating all types of claims. While defendant experts argue that relying on investment growth is too speculative, we counter that investment growth assumptions are contained in the very fabric of the personal injury discount rate.
If you or a loved one has suffered medical negligence at a young age, compassionate Paladin advisors will gladly lend our expertise to securing birth or other personal injury compensation. Please browse our services or contact us for more information about birth injury compensation.
