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

It’ll be interesting to see how she tries to approach this. Given the failure of the EDI person (Bumba) to have any clue about legislation that impacts the decision to allow DU access to the female changing room, despite it being her job, and with her bi-weekly homework copying exercises in mirroring what others were doing instead of speaking to legal, I don’t think ‘good faith’ really applies to ‘winging it’ & keeping fingers crossed the women will be sufficiently too scared to challenge it. But I may be a tad cynical about any claims of ‘good faith’ arguments here.

NC mentioned that the case is likely to be appealed irrespective of who gets the judgement in their favour - the GLP are separately trying to challenge the EHRC on their guidance published in light of the FWS judgement, and both sides recognise the importance & relevance of this case in establishing the manifestation of the FWS in practical settings as a result. JR is absolutely going to try & re-argue the decision because the only real tactic that trans rights advocates have come up with is how complicated things have become & how on earth can any of this work in practice. I think JR will wedge these into her submissions, and it’s good to see FWS push back on this.

Please can someone explain what it FWS intervening means? I have zero legal knowledge...

No. FWS affects only people with GRC’s and DU doesn’t have one.

In any case misunderstanding the law is never a defence nor a mitigation. It doesn’t matter what they were advised, if they were advised or thought wrong they’re blameworthy.

if JR admits that they were going by what they thought the law meant and now see they’re wrong she’s already admitted they got it wrong and conceded the case. She must argue NHSF’s interpretation of the law is correct. Whatever her actual feelings or thoughts are.

And annual leave. Everyone was away. So yeah, soz about the investigation.

Sad times.

A further point on whether it’s relevant that the law is or was “easy to misinterpret”: this is an action for damages, not an action to punish NHSF. The outcome is for SP (should she win) to be given compensation to put her in the same place as if the unlawful acts had never occurred. The whys and wherefores and “we are or aren’t awfully sorry” from NHSF doesn’t affect how much she has been wronged and so won’t affect whatever compensation she gets. If she wins.

I imagine JR will be arguing the SC judgment doesn't apply to the Workplace Regs 1992 and squeezing in as many human rights concerns, privacy etc as she can muster up.

However, as the FWS intervention points out, the SC has ruled that without a GRC trans people are their bio sex across all laws. No getting away from Upton being a man whatever she tries.

What form of mitigation might be possible? It seems like the point of an employment tribunal is to compensate the claimant for detriments and the impact on the claimant doesn’t seem to be lessened by the possibility that other employers were also ignorant or careless. SP’s questions/complaints also went directly to the heart of the issue prior to the Christmas Eve incident. I’d hope Fife would have trouble landing an argument that institutionally they were unaware, when the claimant herself made them aware and managers and the DEI lead had the opportunity to get the facts right at multiple points in this 18 month process.

I'm very much in favour of JR squeezing in as many arguments as she can possibly think of, because there have been far too many internet lawyers giving eccentric interpretations of what the SC judgment means.

And not only internet lawyers, we've seen with recent WEC hearings that a bunch of MPs have picked up the "it's purely about public boards in Scotland" argument and ran with it.

Getting a judge to shoot down as many of these points as possible and give the tribunal's reasoning will be really useful in speeding along compliance with the law. An EAT setting a precedent would be even better.

It’s not as black and white as that with legal arguments, not in employment law anyway. It’s also about putting across a story. JR doesn’t have to admit they got the law wrong to say her clients acted in good faith. If she doesn’t use that exact phrase that’ll still be the subtext of what she’s arguing because otherwise she’ll have to either imply the Supreme Court was wrong or admit that her clients fucked up, should have known better and deserve to lose.

You’re crucially disregarding there’s a difference between what JR should do and what she actually does/will do. She shouldn’t have asked SP who was funding her case or publicly criticised NC or various other things - but she still did.

The GLP have already tried that in one of their many dead cat cases I think? I’ll need to did it out but I’m sure I’ve seen one of the cases they’re arguing about the definitions in the work place regs in a timeline that makes no sense. It would be a bold move, in an employee case against an employer, to try this argument. The workplace regs definitions predate both the EA2010 & the GRA. I’d be astonished if the tribunal accepted this as an argument.

Then again, these things always throw a curve ball in when you least expect it.

Also we have to consider the Allison Bailey judgement re Stonewall, which effectively said to employers: ‘accept duff advice at your peril - when the shit hits the fan you’re carrying that detriment can all on your own’.

I know Allison is continuing her appeal, but that’s the current situation as it stands.

It beggars belief that, in an organisation as big as NHS Fife, there wasn't a lawyer on hand that she could ask. And that she was so naivecas to think she could make that sort of decision without checking the legal position.

I do hope the judge has enough of a remit to pronounce that NHS Fife need to put some training in place for its managers relating to their legal requirement to respect all PCs.

It’s not as black and white as that with legal arguments, not in employment law anyway. It’s also about putting across a story. JR doesn’t have to admit they got the law wrong to say her clients acted in good faith.

JR has a number of different audiences. The panel. The client. The media. And the world of trans activism. As we've seen, a fair amount of things she's been pushing have not been about trying to persuade the panel, for example blackening SP's name as much as possible. This contains far more than just an employment dispute.

Seeing as what’s occurred in the ‘Benidorm’ WhatsApp, I’d imagine Big Sond might be wary of committing much to WhatsApp. Not just Big Sond, either. I’d imagine many will have a more cautious approach to WhatsApp going forward.

You never know, there could be someone like Lindsey Nicoll, waiting for any chance to fit you up for something, and paint you as the devil incarnate whilst whitewashing their own involvement. The only justice is if, like LN, they show their own motives of begrudgery and vindictiveness, and expose their own dodgy behaviour in the process. One thing you can say about Lindsey Nicoll, is that she has been salutary tale.

I just saw this in The Scotsman, reporting on an article in The Courier.

It gives some details of Sandie's claim. I don't know if this been mentioned before (sorry if it has)

https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/nhs-fife-sandie-peggies-list-of-requests-revealed-if-she-wins-case-against-trans-doctor-beth-upton-5250191

It has now been reported by The Courier that back in May last year, Ms Peggie demanded the medic pay compensation if she is successful, and hopes that NHS Fife and Dr Upton will be forced to admit she was discriminated against.

Ms Peggie also wants an additional 25 per cent compensation from NHS Fife over “unreasonable delays” to the misconduct investigation against her.

This internal investigation looked at allegations including the claim Ms Peggie had risked patient safety by walking out on a patient in a resuscitation room at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy when Dr Upton entered.

Documents made available at the employment hearing in Dundee have reportedly revealed Ms Peggie’s list.

The nurse was cleared of misconduct earlier this month after an internal hearing at the end of June - 18 months after she was suspended.

Ms Peggie wants a “protected disclosure detriment” declaration from both NHS Fife and Dr Upton because she had raised concerns about sharing the female changing room with the trans doctor.

Any compensation paid to Ms Peggie would not be for loss of earnings, as she remains an employee of the health board.

Wouldn’t they have to show that they bothered to get sound legal advice? Not Isla doing a google, or giving credence to activist carpetbaggers (in my opinion) like Stonewall and the like.

Edited, as I meant to say carpetbaggers instead of charlatans. IMHO, they are both, but they were very actively doing the rounds of trying to influence/intimidate orgs and businesses into creating what ends up and uncomfortable (illegal in many instances) conditions for women and girls.

I agree with you, to an extent. She has to (and will) say her client has been acting in good faith; she just can't concede that her client has now changed its opinion on the law. The time to do that was before the tribunal started. So she'll have to construct an argument distinguishing FWS from the circumstances of this case. She is a KC, and they don't hand those out for nothing, so I'm going to trust her to construct submissions that the court could accept, if it chose, without obviously contradicting FWS.

Primarily I don't think it matters to the tribunal what sort of legal advice the respondents sought or didn't seek. I think it's important what sort of internal process they ran (from the point of view of fairness) given that (we think) the way the investigation was run is alleged to have been a detriment. But if you follow the law it doesn't matter how you got to do that, and if you don't, I don't think it matters there either.

What does @prh47bridge think?

Yes - NHSF legal would know that Stonewall walked away from the Allison Bailey judgement whistling with their hands in their pockets.

Thanks for the quality info all.

I wondered as well about past tribunals involving the NHS. There was one in England where a TIM took his employer the NHS to a tribunal and won. I can't remember the name or the trust but it was around the Trust treating him differently to the female employees. It was ridiculous as he was changing in the female changing room and staff complained as he was naked exposing his genitals. The manager asked him if wore underwear under his uniform and he complained he was treated differently or some shit. Would the fact that the NHS lost this tribunal affect how their legal teams advised subsequently?

Sorry if this is stupid question but does a GRC change biological sex in this context? I understand that as a matter of fact DU did not have one in any event at the relevant time but if he had?

Exactly.

A part of her argument will be deliberately emotive, as we’ve seen. And that I wager will include making out that her clients were morally right and effectively acted honourably.

It is not unheard of for employment law claims to be brought or defended for political and PR reasons even when their actual legal case is weak. As an employment lawyer, I’ve known of at least one trade union to do this.

I agree. If an employer gets legal advice which leads to them breaking the law, they may have a claim against whoever gave them that advice. It makes no difference to any claims employees have against them.

I agree. I think Fife might try to argue that the fact so many people were getting the law wrong should reduce the compensation they have to pay. I think the tribunal should reject that argument.

Well firstly a piece of paper can't change biological sex. I guess you mean legal sex.

Secondly, in answer, no. The SC ruled that sex segregation must be done in terms of biological sex not 'legal sex'

Im not sure what the point of GRCs are in this case. It feels like they've been rendered useless.