NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #6

[nauticant]

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), has brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (the Board) and another employee, Dr B Upton. Ms Peggie’s claims are of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claims to be a transwoman, that is observed as male at birth but asserting a female gender identity.

The Employment Tribunal hearing started on Monday 3 January 2025 and is expected to continue for 2 weeks. The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton started giving evidence on 6 February.

Access to view the hearing remotely can be obtained by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access.

The hearing is being live tweeted by https://x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr. This also has threadreaderapp archives of live-tweeting of the sessions of the hearing for those who can't follow on Twitter, for example: archive.is/xkSxy.

An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: https://nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

Thread 1: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse

Thread 2: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5267591-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-thread-2

Thread 3: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268347-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-3

Thread 4: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5268942-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-4

Thread 5: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269149-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-5

I've never followed one of these cases before and am not a legal person, and I have to say I'm a bit shocked at what has been going on today. I'm struggling to believe that a party can just fail to disclose potentially vital documents that they've been ordered to disclose, and then effectively threaten the court with massive delays if they do have to comply.

I'm afraid my confidence in the ethical standards of the legal profession has taken a bit of a battering. It just feels so cynical and manipulative.

When you watch live, can other people watching (or in court) see your full name? Or can you invent a user name?

I know someone involved and don't want them to know I'm watching!

Look away for a minute and it's up to £7300!

WOW

We don't know about encouraged. Dr U went to KS and they checked the harrassment policy. She helped Dr fill out a Datix and then they "agreed he would compile an official complaint" later drafting this in an email in the early hours of 25/12/24. Dr U was very careful about how this was described yesterday with neutral subjective language - which implied to me that he was the one pressing on beyond the Datix to "escalate" the complaint. We possibly found out today Dr U's email on xmas morning possibly had a subject line "hate incident" but that may have been a different email to the BMA who Dr U asked to help with the complaint drafting later on. It is important to know who was complaining about what, when and using what process - at the moment neither NC or the Judge are clear from the docs provided by NHS Fife who seem to be expletive deleted useless with filing TBH.

The email you asked about above from Kate Searle may be (??? confirm anyone) the one referred to on 29/12/24 sent to 17 A&E consultants about the "hate incident" in the CR on 24/12 and potentially refers to SP and a suspension. This email to colleagues is relevant to the case because it may have information explaining what the accusations against SP were in the first instance and how she came to be suspended - NC seems to have established that HR have not produced a proper paper trail for the suspension and the reasons for that - yet. It may be key to NC's arguments for SP regarding indirect harrassment by inappropriate use of the hospital harrassment policy... It is confusing!

The cross x of Dr U now seems like a bit of a side show, doesn't it?
Anyway I was hoping that NC wouldn't 'roast' him, there's no need, just her usual strategic [or is it tactical?] plugging away at the facts, giving no excuse for wobbly upper lips or martyr status.

@Sozzel You can just put your initials. As long as you don't use anything offensive.

So if your name is Angela Alice Sozzel, don't put ASS 😀

Not sure it's the legal profession - despite the activist interest of a KC. It's the NHS who have failed to comply with the direction to disclose information - the defendants who have put a woman's job on the line yet are unable to disclose the information that details how they did this while complying with the law.

Cor blimey. Thanks all. Following along on these threads is amazing. I’m in the office on Monday which is going to seriously impact my ability to MN during working hours 😭

Apparently rheumatoid arthritis is two to three times more common among women than men. So this show of support for Sandie will hopefully benefit women in the long run too

I am properly agog at these missing docs shenanigans.

Yes, a lot of the women in my family suffer with it, so it's been lovely to see not only the support for Sandie, but for the charity too.

Lots of people use just initials for their court 'username'. Whilst the court admin staff might have a record of full names, only the username you have chosen will appear on screen. No way of knowing whether the initials are 'real' ones!

Can someone who knows the law explain - is there the same obligation to submit evidence - similar to a subpoena, for employment tribunals? Does an Employment Tribunal have the power to compel someone to comply?

Like, can a participant just ignore a request, or (ahem) delete emails and say they don't exist? Surely not...

You can use any name you like. I noticed some MNs using their MN names.
Good luck. I haven’t been able to see anything in days, just the list of all the people watching.
No idea why I have a blank screen and no volume.
MN has been great though. Thanks everyone !!

Whilst JR is clearly trying to defend her clients, it is not clear that she is responsible for the non-disclosure. However, these tactics have been tried before. They don't work. The court may well decide that the reason for non-disclosure is that the undisclosed documents support SP's case and damage the defendants. It is not impossible that those responsible at NHS Fife have decided taking that risk is better than disclosing the documents.

The defendants can threaten the court with massive delays, and the court can threaten them back with "You have failed to make your case, or any case at all. Shall we conclude the proceedings accordingly?"

The judge is compelling them to provide the records. I think it is via an court order. Whether the NHS have deleted them, lost them or never had them, not keeping proper records would be professional misconduct. Ironically what SP is being accused of - so far we have heard very little about the actual patient care problems which will be in the bundle but Dr U's description of the unusual communication raised only the "potential" for problems with patient care, rather than any material evidence for problems.

Ooh, I'm in (well, wfchtj).

Assuming it's still happening....

The charity's accountant is going to be very "WTF???"

sorry - they all left a while back! Come back on Monday at 10

It finished until monday at 10am @Swashbuckled

I appear as Boiledbeetle so I don't think they're that arsed! They do not have my actual name at all.

Sorry, if this has been answered but they’d be able to get them back by restoring the backup at the point at which the emails still existed, assuming they take backups!

Oh, curses!

Got myself really organised, and got a load of screens set up around me while I'm working.

Typical!

Will catch up on the thread this evening 😊

Yes, you must submit everything relevant that is requested by the other side or ordered by the judge even if it is fatally damaging to your case. An order by the judge compels you to do so. If you fail to comply the judge may make a further order or order you to pay costs the other side have incurred due to your failure. If the documents remain undisclosed, the court is entitled to infer that they are damaging to your case and help the other side.

This is exactly the same as happened in Vardy vs Rooney, where Vardy and her agent destroyed a lot of the evidence they were supposed to disclose. The judge concluded this was a deliberate attempt to hide evidence that they were leaking stories to the Sun as Rooney alleged, and was part of the reason Rooney won.