header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
11 May 2018 / David Regan
Issue: 7792 / Categories: Features , Child law , Damages
printer mail-detail

Losing out on the lost years

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7792_regan

Child claimants as well as adults should be able to recover damages for ‘lost years’, says David Regan

  • Argues that child claimants should be able to recover damages for loss of earnings (lost years).

Few aspects of the law relating to damages for serious personal injury have caused as much confusion and are as poorly understood as claims for ‘lost years’. In such cases, damages are awarded to a living claimant whose life has been shortened by a tort, for the loss of earnings in the time where, but for the tort they would have been alive. The law as it currently stands has evolved in an uncertain fashion, so that at present adult claimants are able to recover such damages while child claimants cannot. This situation is illogical to the degree that it verges on bringing the law into disrepute. Both the Court of Appeal and an increasing number of High Court decisions have lamented it, but the Supreme Court has yet to have an opportunity to consider the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll