The UK legal landscape for clinical negligence claims has shifted significantly following the Supreme Court decision in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5. The ruling clarifies whether children who suffer life-shortening injuries can recover compensation for income they would have earned during the years of life lost due to negligence.

The UK sees over 13,000 clinical negligence claims annually, with obstetrics accounting for the highest costs.

For families navigating catastrophic birth injuries or severe medical errors, this decision could reshape how compensation is calculated. At Cooper Hall Solicitors, we explain what this landmark ruling means in practical terms and how it may affect future claims.

Overview of the Supreme Court Decision

In 2024–25, the UK Supreme Court decided 56 appeals, highlighting how rare and influential major rulings like CCC are. In February 2026, the UK Supreme Court ruled by a 4–1 majority that young children can recover “lost years damages.” These damages relate to financial losses caused by a reduced life expectancy following clinical negligence.

The claimant, anonymised as CCC, suffered a severe brain injury due to oxygen deprivation at birth in 2015. As a result, her life expectancy was reduced to just 29 years. The NHS Trust admitted liability for negligence, but the legal dispute centred on whether she could claim for earnings she would have made after age 29 if she had lived a normal lifespan.

Previously, courts relied on a 1982 decision that prevented young children from recovering such damages. This Supreme Court ruling overturns that position.

What Are Lost Years Damages?

Lost years damages compensate claimants for the income they would likely have earned during years of life cut short by negligence.

In catastrophic personal injury claims, future losses such as lost earnings, pensions, and long-term care often make up the largest portion of total damages awarded, frequently accounting for the majority share of the compensation payout.

In most personal injury cases involving adults, courts already award damages for:

• Future lost earnings during the claimant’s lifetime
• Lost pension rights
• Reduced earning capacity

However, until now, children with shortened life expectancy were typically denied compensation for income beyond their projected lifespan.

The Supreme Court confirmed that this distinction was not supported by legal principle.

Why This Case Is So Important

This decision is legally significant because it overturns long-standing assumptions in clinical negligence law.

1. Overturning Historic Legal Barriers

For decades, courts relied on a Court of Appeal ruling that excluded young children from lost years claims. The Supreme Court held that this approach was inconsistent with earlier House of Lords authorities. The previous legal position originated from a 1982 Court of Appeal ruling (Gill and Coote v El Vino Co Ltd) and remained authoritative for decades before more recent developments in discrimination and equality law.

2. Equal Treatment for Child Claimants

Children account for around 20% of serious injury claimants in UK clinical negligence litigation. The Court confirmed that compensation principles should apply equally regardless of age. If adults can recover lost years’ damages, children should not be treated differently purely because their career paths are less predictable.

3. Expanding Compensation in Birth Injury Cases

Obstetric claims represent just 10% of claims but nearly 50% of total NHS negligence payouts. Many high-value clinical negligence claims involve birth injuries. This ruling could increase potential compensation in cases involving:

• Cerebral palsy caused by negligent delivery
• Hypoxic brain injuries
• Neonatal care failures
• Severe paediatric medical negligence

The Legal Reasoning Behind the Majority Decision

The majority judgment emphasised that negligence damages are fundamentally compensatory, meaning they aim to place the claimant in the position they would have been in if the negligence had not occurred.

No Requirement for Dependants

One earlier argument was that lost years’ damages only made sense if the claimant had dependants. The Supreme Court rejected this idea, stating that compensation belongs to the injured person, not future beneficiaries.

Uncertainty Does Not Bar Compensation

UK courts routinely apply actuarial modelling, with Ogden Tables used in the majority of high-value injury cases.

The NHS argued that predicting a child’s future earnings is too speculative. The Court disagreed, noting that:

• Courts already assess uncertain future losses regularly
• Statistical and actuarial evidence can guide estimates
• Uncertainty should not penalise injured claimants

Use of Modern Evidence

Average lifetime earnings modelling is based on datasets covering millions of UK workers, improving predictive accuracy. The judgment highlighted the role of tools such as:

• Ogden actuarial tables
• Statistical earnings data
• Family and educational background analysis

These tools help courts estimate probable career trajectories even where individual outcomes are uncertain.

The Dissenting View

Lady Rose issued the sole dissenting judgment. She accepted that dependants are not required for lost years claims, but raised concerns about fairness and speculation.

Her key concerns included:

• The risk of relying on average earnings rather than individual potential
• The difficulty of assessing a young child’s unique abilities
• Financial pressure on NHS defendants

Despite these concerns, the majority concluded that denying compensation due to evidential complexity would be unjust.

What This Means for Clinical Negligence Claims

This decision is likely to have far-reaching implications across the UK legal system.

Higher Potential Compensation Awards

Claims involving life-shortening injuries to children may now include:

• Post-life expectancy lost earnings
• Additional pension loss calculations
• Higher overall settlement values

This is especially relevant in catastrophic birth injury litigation, where claims already involve substantial future care costs.

Greater Focus on Expert Evidence

Expect increased reliance on:

• Educational and vocational experts
• Statistical earnings analysis
• Actuarial projections

Strong expert evidence will be critical in establishing the value of lost years’ damages.

Possible Changes in Settlement Strategy

Defendants, particularly NHS trusts, may adjust litigation strategies, including:

• Earlier settlement negotiations
• More detailed loss calculations
• Increased scrutiny of expert evidence

Implications for Families Pursuing Claims

For families affected by severe clinical negligence, the ruling offers renewed hope for fairer compensation.

Acknowledging Lifetime Financial Loss

Parents of injured children often face lifelong financial challenges. This decision recognises that the loss extends beyond immediate care needs and includes long-term earning potential.

Strengthening Legal Rights

The ruling reinforces that children have the same legal entitlement to compensation as adults when negligence shortens their lives.

Encouraging Early Legal Advice

Given the evolving legal landscape, early advice from experienced clinical negligence solicitors is essential to ensure claims reflect the full extent of recoverable damages.

Will This Change All Clinical Negligence Claims?

Not every case will automatically qualify for lost years’ damages. Courts will still assess:

• Evidence of a  likely career path
• Educational background
• Family circumstances
• Statistical earning potential

Each claim will be assessed individually, and the strength of supporting evidence will remain crucial.

Future Legal Developments

The wider notion of lost-years damages may be reconsidered in future cases, as a Supreme Court judge has hinted, potentially leading to further legal reform.

The Supreme Court overturns or significantly modifies precedent in around one-third of major appeals.

The decision, in the meantime, affirms that young children are entitled to lost-years compensation.

Legal professionals expect the decision to influence:

• Ongoing high-value clinical negligence cases
• Settlement negotiations across the UK
• Future appeal litigation

How Cooper Hall Solicitors Can Help

Navigating complex Supreme Court rulings requires specialist legal insight. At Cooper Hall Solicitors, we support clients through every stage of clinical negligence claims, including:

• Cases with birth injuries and neonatal negligence
• Late diagnosis and treatment claims
• Surgical negligence claims
• Catastrophic injury litigation

Our team keeps pace with legal developments to ensure clients receive compensation aligned with current law and emerging precedents.

We know that behind each case, there is a family seeking justice, answers and long-term financial stability.

Final Thoughts

A critical change in UK clinical negligence law is the CCC Supreme Court decision. It confirms that children are now able to claim for lost years damages. The court has removed a significant hurdle, which guarantees compensation of injuries that terminate life.

The case is important to the relatives who have fallen victims of serious medical negligence. It is a reminder that the compensation must be appropriate to the actual extent of the loss- irrespective of the age of the victim.

If you believe you or your child may have been affected by clinical negligence, seeking expert legal advice is essential. The law continues to evolve, and experienced solicitors can help ensure your claim reflects the full extent of your rights.

Contact our experienced solicitors today for a confidential consultation.