NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #26

[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 February 2025 and was expected to last 2 weeks. However, after 2 weeks it was not complete and it adjourned part-heard. It is planned that it will resume on 16 July and the last day of evidence will be 28 July and then there will be 2 days of submissions from counsel meaning that the hearing will end on 30 July.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February.

Access to view the hearing remotely was obtainable by sending an email request to [email protected] headed Public Access Request (Peggie v Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024 and requesting access. However, as a result of problems with the livestreaming, apparently caused by a very large number of observers, remote public access to the hearing was suspended on Tuesday 11 February. It was doubtful whether pubilc access for remote viewing would be reinstated but recent developments (as of mid May) suggest that this might actually become available again.

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: https://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
Thread 6: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5269635-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-6
Thread 7: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5270365-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-7
Thread 8: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271511-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-8
Thread 9: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271596-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-9
Thread 10: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5271723-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-10
Thread 11: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272046-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-11
Thread 12: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272276-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-12
Thread 13: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272398-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-13
Thread 14: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5272939-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-14
Thread 15: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273119-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-15
Thread 16: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273636-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-16
Thread 17: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5273827-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-17
Thread 18: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274332-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-18
Thread 19: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5274571-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-19
Thread 20: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5275782-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-20
Thread 21: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5276925-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-21
Thread 22: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5280174-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-22
Thread 23: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5285690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-23
Thread 24: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5301295-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-24
Thread 25: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5318518-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-25

JR: Why do you think she asked you to do the observations and left?
DU: Initial impression she did not want to be in the same space as me

Thanks for quoting this @MyAmpleSheep It's clearly a mountain out of a molehill but very interesting because if I genuinely thought someone did not want to be in the same space as me, my first question would be why. What have I done to make that person feel uncomfortable? Not take it as (further) evidence that I'm the victim. I honestly don't know how, as a society, we are supposed to deal with this (personality?) disordered thinking, especially when we've basically legitimised it for the last few decades.

Disordered thinking in a doctor who claims he is the opposite sex in court and would feel free to treat a patient who asked for the opposite sex. In this case he should be barred from being a doctor.

Probably already posted though I didn’t see it. If you want to watch you have until Wednesday:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16-9POEZ7yHWUr6EmbfquJZO18Gv78bSm/view

Im abroad this time for the duration but will be eagerly following here and TT Twitter for updates.

I've just realised we're almost in mid July and the case is about to resume. It seemed so far away at the time but how quickly it's passed. I'll be spending the rest of the morning catching up on this thread.

I've just started a new thread to draw attention to this but am too dim to link the doc ...

Am I reading right that you have to apply before the cop tomorrow?

Applications for permission to watch or listen to the proceedings remotely should be sent by email to [email protected] by 5pm on Wednesday 09 July. Any previous requests for remote attendance prior to publication of this note will not be considered.

This email must include:
a. Case number in the subject line (see above);
b. In what capacity the applicant is attending e.g. Member of the public,Tribunal Tweets, second interested parties or professional purposes;
c. The full name of the applicant;
d. The email address of the applicant which will be used to join the remote hearing

This is how I've composed the email if anyone wants to copy (to save time)

'Re: Public Access Request (Peggie Vs Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024'

Good morning

I would like to request access to the following tribunal as a member of the public

(Peggie Vs Fife Health Board) 4104864/2024

My name
My email address

Kind regards

Edit- correction. I've amended the subject line and case in the main body to:

Mrs S Peggie V Fife Health Board & Dr Beth Upton
Employment Tribunal – hearing
Case number: 4104864/2024

Oops Cross post

Still helpful though, you've included the case number 4104864/2024 which wasn't in my post.

What a stroke of luck I decided to revisit this thread today. One more day and I would have missed the deadline. I didn't get to view the hearing last time because by the time I was ready to join in, they suspended the remote viewing because of disruptions. Let's hope that doesn't happen again

Application sent.
I've received the following response so it does look like they are limiting access, presumably to avoid the issue experienced last time

If your email includes an application to observe or listen to a hearing remotely, please be aware that spaces are limited and will be assigned on a first come, first served basis.

Please do not contact The Tribunal regarding your application as should your application be successful; you will receive a separate notification closer to the hearing date with further instructions.

If you do not receive any further instructions from The Tribunal, regrettably your application has not been successful on this occasion.

There was discussion upthread that they'd allocated for 300 observers. So, the question is what level of interest have they received?

I'm not sure first come first served is a useful measure

Presumably some people will apply and then be unwell or have to prioritise their own work etc.

Would it not have been better to sort the tech out to cope with the level of interest.....

It also says that if you are successful you are expecting to log in 30 mins prior to the start each day

It's unclear to me. Suppose I'm given access, manage to watch the first day, then the second day I'm unavailable. My understanding is that someone else can take my place. But the next day, can I get back in, or am I out for the rest of the hearing? All seems rather unsatisfactory.

I think they will issue 300 invites and that will be that.

They are not going to monitor how many are in and then give out more invitations if there are less than 300.

As the link and pin stay the same for the during of the hearing, if they gave out more than 300, then they could have a problem if everyone joined.

Seen this?

www.nhsfife.org/news-updates/latest-news/2025/07/nhs-fife-becomes-first-scottish-health-board-in-over-50-years-to-receive-official-university-health-board-status/

Are there any rules around number of people watching your screen? Are only you allowed to watch?

I don't mean sharing the link, and I don't know how they'd monitor it, just wondered...

Did you see Fife has said how much the employment tribunal has cost to date in an article on Waitwhat’s link? North of £220k.

If experience from previous hearings are anything to go by, the requirement to log in 30 minutes early will be for the first day for the clerk to check you are who you say you are - I’ve had to turn my camera on for this, which would also address @BettyBooper ’s point about other people being in the room.

On subsequent days I expect we’ll need to be logged on and ready to go at the time the session starts so the monitoring clerk doesn’t have to spend all day “approving” and admitting late comers, if they are expecting 300 observers in addition to press and supporters of the claimant and respondents. I think it was Prof Phoenix’s hearing with Justin the grumpy clerk that refused to re-admit anyone unfortunate enough to have a dropped connection and we had to wait until the next break.

Oh, and I think they will be monitoring to see who is using their log in credentials (it should be a relatively trivial IT task). And any unused at all will be inactivated and the slots offered to a waiting list. Whether this continues throughout the hearing who knows, I’d guess it depends on demand and the level of work involved for the clerks.

I really don't think they will offer any more than the initial 300.

It seems that the video link people are considered to be a ball ache and the clerks are often not receptive to letting others in the room.

And are we not only about half way with the court case??? Never mind any settlements!
How many fully enclosed gender neutral changing rooms would that have built I wonder? Would have been so much easier

Thanks @Waitwhat23 @Tallisker

NHS Fife can confirm that, as of 31 May 2025, a total of £220,465.93 has been incurred in legal costs relating to an ongoing Employment Tribunal case brought against the board. This figure includes Counsel fees and services provided by NHS Scotland’s Central Legal Office.

These costs will be reclaimed through the national Clinical Negligence and Other Risks Indemnity Scheme (CNORIS). Under CNORIS, NHS Fife’s financial liability is limited to £25,000, which ensures that the legal proceedings do not impact frontline clinical or patient services. Bollocks it does not impact frontline services - it will somehow in government budget. That’s the problem NHS Fife don’t understand that we the taxpayer will be paying for this.

NHS Fife is not in a position to estimate the full cost of proceedings while the Tribunal remains ongoing.

So that is £220,465.93 of taxpayers money (somewhere along the line) up to the end of May.

Just to be pedantic, as far as I'm aware the Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) doesn't have canons, but the Scottish Episcopal Church (part of the Anglican communion) may. I wonder if her son took some inspiration from her PhD thesis.