NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #42

[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 resumed 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] by 5pm on Wednesday 9 July. Detailed instructions were provided here:

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

The hearing is being live tweeted by x.com/tribunaltweets and there's additional information here: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 and tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6. 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.ph/WSSjg.

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

Links to previous threads #1 to #40 can be found in this thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 41: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379334-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-41 24 July 2025 to 25 July 2025

Given that so much wasn’t disclosed until after the start of the February hearing do you think that even NC and the rest of the team are surprised at what has subsequently unfolded? They obviously knew they had a case but did they know just how much of a case they had, and how much rot there was to uncover?

FFS

J Want to raise a point re timing. We have a problem with timing. We have to leave the building by 5pm so feel appropriate to stop at 3.45 as has been a long and tiring week. Do we go part heard w this witness. JR - do you have a view?

IIRC, although Michalak’s husband attempted to refer the named respondents to GMC, I don’t think that they faced FtP.

@Waitwhat23 thanks. Seems like grasping at straws from JR.

If you need to go, could you put up the next thread and we promise not to use it until necessary. Or I could put the next one up when required and copy and paste your OP?

Michael Foran on accusations from JR at Jim IT forensic expert "absolutely extraordinary" strong words from the lawyer of understatement!!

x.com/michaelpforan/status/1948730798024089906?s=46

JR I prefer time limit as MC cannot come back until Tues so wld be unworkable to put her evidence into submissions
J Can u come on Tues?
MC Yes, I could come on Tues
J Could you come in on Thurs JR?
JR I have a flight back on Thursday at 3pm

With a spinny skirt. In which he will look "cute".

We resume.

J Big Sond Want to raise a point re timing. We have a problem with timing. We have to leave the building by 5pm so feel appropriate to stop at 3.45 as has been a long and tiring week. Do we go part heard w this witness. JR - do you
have a view

Fifer : Big Sond is playin it cool but it's clear his thinkin : get in the motor by 4, tee off at Falkland 4.45, spend the evening in the 19th, peanuts for tea, taxi hame, taxi in the morning quick roond an hame by lunch.

No doctors don't keep diaries they write in patients notes and sometimes those records can be lacking due to time constraints. I say that as a retired GP and medical relative now who is fed up with things not being passed on.

I've just recently become invested in this case and it's horrendous and I don't know where these doctors did their training but they didn't go to my medical school!

I have worked in NHS fife though.............best one was as a first year very junior doctor they gave us all on call rooms miles from the wards instead of 3 floors above where they had always been. It took a lot of effort to get through to them that they were wrong!

Dishonesty is a reason to lose your professional licence - if it’s one of the standards you are expected to uphold. Professional people - not just well educated people - usually have to register with professional bodies to be licensed to do the job they’ve qualified for. It cuts across many professions & is the reason that often a Dr or Police Officer etc. would have some weight added to their evidence as it’s expected to by honest.

Dr Searle alluded to it when she suggested that she believed DU because he’s a doctor & has to act with honesty & integrity at all times. If DU is found to have been dishonest - either when giving evidence, or in his statements to investigators, or in how he’s presented the digital evidence - it has implications that may not turn out well for him. But equally, it might be the reason the tribunal would be reluctant to accept he’s been deliberately dishonest - because he’s a doctor & is expected to be honest. That’s going to be a key factor IMO in the judgement. A lot of the wider detriments are from people not doing their jobs properly once the initial report was made of a ‘confrontation’ in the F Cr. But going as far as to deem DU dishonest, i think is something the tribunal may avoid making a call on.

J You could make that. Miss Cunningham?
NC Could I have a moment to discuss? [adjourn]

Ah feck, there goes getting anything done next week as well!!

I don’t know about Drs but the nurses who get struck off or sacked are often done for altering notes, or falsifying records to cover something up. It’s the dishonesty that’s such a big problem. You can make an honest mistake, but you can’t lie about it.

From TT

JR I prefer time limit as MC cannot come back until Tues so wld be unworkable to put her evidence into submissions
J Can u come on Tues?
MC Yes, I could come on Tues
J Could you come in on Thurs JR?
JR I have a flight back on Thursday at 3pm
J You could make that. Miss Cunningham?
NC Could I have a moment to discuss? [adjourn]

It was already doing that when she got so personal with NC. Questioning the professionalism of another barrister in that way is a really poor look - going well beyond the usual performative theatrics of the courtroom and into the personal. As soon as you do that, you undermine your professional credibility IMO.

Meantime NC laid the groundwork for what was obviously coming in the technical evidence and now sits back, doubtless serenely, whilst CE gets to work on witnesses and JR.

No wonder SEEN and Dr Helen Webberley (she/her) are having a field day on Twix about NC.

Back on

I think both sides have reached an agreement Re timing

God knows what it is mind.

The Herald has now written their story about the bundle:

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25341258.upton-altered-records-include-peggie-patient-concern

Was the tribunal supposed to end on Wed/Thurs?

And they are disagreeing again

Yeah, I've seen this. Dates being tippexed out and changed, important documents which should've been available but weren't being conveniently found at the last minute down the back of a filing cabinet.

Lots of panel whispering

NC Our position is that we should have MC's evidence in chief and cross on Tues and continue to Thurs
JR I would prefer to continue as planned or at least start w x exam
J Either way witness wld be part heard
JR Or u cld limit?
J I could say 30 mins chief and 45 for cross

Sorry - quoted the wrong post. No way to fix that.

There is no precedural mechanism for DU to be found guilty of lying, dishonesty, misleading the court or any such thing as an outcome of this tribunal. Only harassment.

The most the judgement can say is that the judge found him to be an unhelpful witness, not to be credible, that the court prefers the evidence of a different witness where they disagree etc. - language like that.

If the judge really thinks DU deliberately lied in an attempt to mislead the court he can refer the papers to the relevant prosecutor for a review (like Fraser J - as he then was - did in the relevant Post Office trial)