A significant new Supreme Court decision is set to increase the compensation available to children who suffer life‑changing injuries due to medical negligence.
Until now, children could only claim for lost earnings up to their expected shortened lifespan.
This new ruling changes that, and importantly, it brings fairness and consistency to how the law treats injured children.
What has changed?
When a child is injured at birth and their life expectancy is reduced, they typically receive compensation for lost earnings only for the years they were expected to live.
Obviously, children who have suffered a significant injury at birth may well have a shorter life expectancy because of their injuries. This often means that the lost earnings claim is short.
But the Supreme Court has ruled that this is not enough.
The Court has confirmed that compensation should reflect the full working life the child would have had if the negligence had not occurred. That includes:
- All the wages they would have earned up to a normal retirement age
- Pension contributions they would have built up over a lifetime
This aligns children’s claims with those of adults and teenagers who already have the right to claim for these “lost years.”
The case behind the ruling
The decision stems from the case of a girl born in 2015 at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust.
During her mother’s labour, her abnormal heartbeat was not acted upon. She was born showing signs of oxygen deprivation and was later diagnosed with a severe hypoxic brain injury.
As a result, she has:
- Severe cerebral palsy
- Significant visual impairment
- Epilepsy
- An inability to walk or talk
- A need for round‑the‑clock care
The Trust admitted failings in her care.
In 2023, the High Court awarded her a lump sum of £6.8 million and yearly payments of £394,940 for her extensive care needs and loss of earnings up to age 29 due to her reduced life expectancy.
However, the Supreme Court has now ruled that because she would otherwise have been expected to live a normal lifespan, worked until age 68, and received a pension, her compensation must reflect this full loss. Her family’s legal team estimates this could mean an additional £800,000.
Her mother described the ruling as
“elated that my little girl has changed the law and that this will help lots of other children who have been injured through no fault of their own.”
Why did the claim go to the Supreme Court?
The case went to the Supreme Court because there was a fundamental point of law that needed resolving:
Should injured children be treated differently from injured adults and adolescents when claiming compensation for “lost years” (lost future earnings caused by a reduced life expectancy)?
Before this ruling:
- Adults and teenagers with life‑shortening injuries were already allowed to claim for the earnings they would have made during the years they lost.
- Children were not. Courts had been following older case law that treated children differently, limiting them to claiming only for earnings during their shortened lifespan.
In this child’s case, both sides agreed that had she not been injured, she would have had a normal life expectancy and worked until 68.
But the lower courts were bound by and had to follow previous decisions that said children could not claim for “lost years.”
The legal issue
The key question was:
Is there any legal justification for denying children the right to claim compensation for a full working life when adults can claim it?
This was a point that only the Supreme Court could resolve, because:
- It required reconsidering earlier legal authorities.
- The issue had significant national impact, affecting many future birth‑injury claims.
- It raised a question of fairness and consistency across personal injury law.
The Supreme Court ultimately decided that there was no legal basis for treating children differently.
Why this matters for other families
This decision will have far‑reaching effects. Around 250 children each year in England suffer brain injuries at birth. These are among the most devastating and costly clinical negligence cases.
The ruling means:
- Children with life‑limiting injuries caused by medical negligence can now receive compensation reflecting the life they should have had.
- Families may be better supported financially over the long term, especially where 24‑hour care is needed.
- The law is now consistent and fair across all age groups.
Comment
Around 150 cases of brain injuries during childbirth are reported to the NHS in England each year. It is imperative that the legal system is consistent and fair, and this decision is a major step forward.
When a child suffers a brain injury because something went wrong in their medical care, the impact is lifelong. For families who have never been through this, it can be hard to grasp just how completely it changes every part of life and why compensation is not about “money for the sake of it,” but about meeting essential needs and giving the child the best possible quality of life.
When you understand how profoundly a brain injury affects every aspect of a child’s life, their care needs, their future independence, their financial security and the emotional and practical burden on their families, it becomes much clearer why fair compensation matters so deeply.
The Supreme Court’s ruling finally recognises this.
Before this ruling, the law effectively said that if a child’s life expectancy was shortened because of negligence, they didn’t deserve compensation for the many working years they would never get to experience.
This was deeply unfair.
Children like the girl in this case would have grown up, gone to school, taken exams, entered the workforce and built a career until retirement. The Court acknowledged this explicitly, accepting she would have enjoyed a normal lifespan, gained GCSEs and worked until age 68. The law now finally reflects the value of that lost future.
A child with a catastrophic brain injury will often require 24‑hour specialist care, extensive therapy and rehabilitation, specialist equipment and home adaptations, lifelong medical and mobility support, and ongoing supervision and safeguarding, to name just a few.
These costs do not stop when the child reaches adulthood; in fact, they often increase. By allowing compensation for a full working life, the ruling helps ensure families are not left struggling to meet the enormous long‑term costs of care.
If your child has suffered an injury at birth and you believe mistakes were made, we are here to help. Our specialist team can advise you on what this ruling means for your claim and how to secure the support your family needs.
How can we help?
Danielle Young is a Partner in our Medical Negligence team, which has been ranked in tier one by the independently researched publication, The Legal 500. She specialises in pregnancy and birth injury claims (including cerebral palsy), brain injury claims, fatal claims, surgical error claims, and cauda equina injury claims.
If you have any questions in relation to the subjects discussed in this article, then please get in touch with Danielle or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online form.
Contact usIf this article relates to a specific case/cases, please note that the facts of this case/cases are correct at the time of writing.