NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #49

[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 was 29 July 2025. It will resume again over 1 to 2 September for closing submissions.

The hearing commenced with Sandie Peggie giving evidence. Dr Beth Upton gave evidence from Thursday 6 February to Wednesday 12 February 2025. Sandie Peggie returned to give more evidence on 29 July 2025.

Access to view the second part of 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: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 41: 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
Thread 42: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379820-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-42 25 July 2025 to 25 July 2025
Thread 43: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379979-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-43 25 July 2025 to 27 July 2025
Thread 44: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5380196-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-44 25 July 2025 to 28 July 2025
Thread 45: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5381518-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-45 28 July 2025 to 28 July 2025
Thread 46: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5381640-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-46 28 July 2025 to 29 July 2025
Thread 47: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5382102-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-47 29 July 2025 to 29 July 2025
Thread 48: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5382317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-48 29 July 2025 to 31 July 2025

I read it as @TriesNotToBeCynical referring to Big Sond, not you!

ETA Snap!

My apologies!

For clarity I’m reposting this post I put on the previous thread and which a lot of the above discussion here is about:

Excellent news: FWS have been allowed to become an intervenor in this case (by written submission only)
forwomen.scot/31/07/2025/employment-tribunal-intervention-peggie/

Thanks to everyone who's explained Big Sond's comments - that makes sense now.

Although as someone points out the judge probably has to refrain from prejudging submissions, even batshit ones.

No, you can only intervene if you have sufficient interest in the outcome of the case, or your involvement will assist the tribunal.

I am glad FWS have intervened and owned the SC judgement. I do sometimes get the feeling Sex Matters are getting more publicity than FWS for the SC judgement. Yes, they intervened and Ben Cooper was superb but it’s FWS who did that hard slog.

That is not a criticism of Sex Matters but a reflection of how good their PR is. Wearing the colour blue, using the photos from outside the Supreme Court, being very pro active on X and social media. They are maximising their opportunities which is great for women.

There is room for both organisations and I expect they work well together. Having said that I want FWS to get the credit for what they did.

I'd love to know what Big Sond's holiday WhatsApp has to say about this case.

JRs submission is going to be a bit shaky:

I concede that he is a man in the eyes of the law, and there are these pesky HSE Regulations about single sex spaces, BUT IB said he could change there. Also it was Christmas!

There's not much else, is there?

Could JR argue that at the time of the changing room incidents the SC ruling had not been given? Although we know it didn't change any existing laws, it was clear that before the clarification from the SC the NHS and half the country were misinterpreting the EA2010.

I forgot I had pre-emptively name changed. I stupidly thought the last thread would tide us over till September 😂

Poor @nauticant

He does.

If a party wants to argue a point of law, that point is in dispute even if it is clear their arguments are batshit. The FWS judgement was not available when this tribunal started. But for Fife's non-disclosure, JR's repeated interruptions and Upton's rambling evidence, the hearings would have been over before the FWS judgement. Therefore, at the start of the case, it was clearly open to JR to argue that trans women have the legal right to be in women's changing rooms. The SC judgement has taken that away but, unless JR concedes that the point is no longer arguable, the judge has to allow her to make her arguments. If he did not it would give Fife a route to appeal, arguing that the tribunal pre-judged an important part of their case.

I would be surprised if she tries that argument. All the SC judgement did is clarify what the law has always been. It did not change the law. She may be able to argue some mitigation on the basis that so many organisations, including EHRC, were getting the law wrong, but that is all.

At that point, the Court's interpretation was that you needed a GRC to be treated as somebody of the opposite sex; Upton didn't have one (hadn't transitioned for sufficient time), so he should have been treated as a man.

I appreciate that the SNP were keen to have selfID, but the UK govt put a stop to that.

I think that’s highly likely. She’ll probably argue that her clients were going in good faith by what they thought the law meant, which was (her argument will go) a commonly held interpretation and what they were advised.

However they haven’t confirmed who made that advice

other than people within their own organisation who ‘googled it’

Some staff within NHSS might have been interpreting it incorrectly but many of us were well aware of the law, and surely DEI managers are required to be cognisant of the relevant legislation - ignorance is not (or shouldn't be!!) a defence.

Won't wash. FWS1 was the leading case law at that time and it said provision for women in the Equality Act, by definition, excludes biological males.

JR might try saying of Wee Sond, 'Oh, everything…she's just this sort of bigoted woman’.

It would be unkind of me to ask how that panned out for Gordon Brown.

This has been my impression about the judge from the beginning

It’s in dispute because the two parties don’t agree on the correct interpretation of the law. There’s nothing sinister about it. The judge will hear and read their submissions and decide who’s right. That’s it.

No it (probably) won’t wash, but I think the “in good faith” argument is something JR will make. She has to defend the harassment etc.

I disagree - he will be well aware of the case and no doubt has read through the judgement with a fine tooth comb on the grounds that he will be presiding over the first case to test it. He will also be very conscious that there may well be an appeal and therefore he needs to allow both sides plenty of leeway to make their case. He doesn't want there to be a risk of an appeal on proceedural grounds as that will reflect badly on him in what has to be one of the biggest cases of his career to date. My gut instinct is that he is leaning to SP's side and so is giving JR a fair amount of leeway so she can't argue that she wasn't allowed to make a case or a particular point so that there is no proceedural reason for an appeal - not that it wouldn't stop her trying to scrape around and find one.

I doubt she’s ever going to concede that he’s a man in the eyes of the law, she’s too gender-addled for that.

I could see that possibly stretching (at a push) to Searle and others, but Bumba should have been aware of the legislation and advised correctly when asked for guidance.