Ruling in CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 this week, Lords Reed, Briggs, Burrows and Stephens held children whose lives are shortened by negligence should not be excluded from claiming compensation for the income they would have earned during their working lives.
Lady Rose, dissenting, said: ‘There is a risk of unfairness to defendants in that their liability is likely to be increased where the family of the claimant is successful but the court may prefer to fall back on published average earnings figures where the family is unsuccessful.
‘A court may therefore be invited to assume that a child will follow in its family members' footsteps if its parents and siblings are gainfully employed. But if the claimant's father has spent most of his adult life in prison and his brother has lived on social security benefits, it would be difficult for the court to dismiss the claim for loss of earnings on the assumption that the claimant would have followed a similar path.’
CCC concerned a clinical negligence claim brought on behalf of CCC, who sustained a hypoxic brain injury at birth in 2015, which caused severe cerebral palsy and left her unable to walk, talk or eat without a tube, visually impaired and in need of 24-hour care. The NHS Hospital Trust subsequently admitted failures in her care caused this injury.
The High Court awarded substantial damages to meet her lifelong care needs in a quantum-only trial in 2023. However, the court held itself bound by Croke v Wiseman [1982] 1 WLR 71 to deny CCC compensation for missed future earnings. A leapfrog appeal was granted to consider this issue and the case went straight to the Supreme Court, which overruled Croke.
The claim has been remitted to the High Court for assessment of damages.
CCC’s solicitor James Drydale, partner at Taylor Emmet Solicitors, said: ‘The Supreme Court has put right a historic injustice which set injured children’s rights in negligence cases at a lesser level than those of an adult.
‘If your life has been significantly shortened by someone else's negligence then I think most people would regard it as fair that amends should be made for that. Why should a child's life be any different?’
Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, said: ‘This is a monumental ruling for the many children and young people left with serious and life-changing injuries as a result of medical negligence.
‘The Supreme Court has today corrected a legal anomaly that has existed for nearly 40 years. Specialist lawyers, acting for families of children with brain injuries suffered at birth, have stood frustrated and aggrieved by the limitations created by the previous judgment on this issue.’
