NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #50

[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
Thread 49: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5383443-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-49 31 July 2025 to 8 August 2025

From Nicole...

https://x.com/nicoleepeggiee/status/1961460418691375606?t=7WQmBb2werxN-YYZQZ684A&s=19

Nicole is with them

TransLucent has been given permission to intervene, challenging the meaning of man/men and woman/women in the Workplace Regs 1992.

https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/news/2025-news/trans-led-advocacy-group-to-intervene-in-nhs-fife-changing-room-tribunal/

This could be really interesting - the first test of the single sex provision in the Regs since FWS.

If I understand it correctly, Translucent is saying that the UK Supreme Court is wrong.

"...EU case law remains applicable despite Brexit, and establishes that individuals with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment (trans people) must be treated in accordance with their affirmed gender, irrespective of whether they hold a Gender Recognition Certificate...."

@PigletJohn

I think TL wants to argue that the definition of men and women for the Workplace Regs is not based on biological sex.

...but on some different definition, which didn't really exist back in 1992?

Apparently so.

I don't think that is what they are saying. If they were, it would be a pointless argument to make to the tribunal. The tribunal cannot decide the SC is wrong. I think they are arguing that the 1992 Regulations are governed by EU law notwithstanding Brexit. That argument should fail. The EU (Withdrawal) Act as modified by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act made it clear that the principle of the supremacy of EU law has been abolished and that any retained legislation must, as far as possible, be read in a way that is compatible with UK law. So, even if they are right about EU case law (and I'm not convinced they are), my view is that their arguments fail.

Does that mean that the case would have had merit if we hadn't left the EU?

Foran is vey clear on the work place regs and its ordinary meaning re biological sex.

He says that because the work place regs were transported in to UK law post brexit that law is not subsumed by subsequent law.

And holds as does the Croft case on biological sex.

its all a load of codswallop. Doomed to fail < sits back popcorn out> <playing we are a road to nowhere>

If we were still in the EU, our courts would be subordinate to the EU's courts. If TransLucent is correct that EU case law is that trans individuals must be allowed to use the facilities of their declared gender regardless of whether they have a GRC, the UK courts would have to follow that. However, as we are not in the EU, our courts are not bound by any decisions of EU courts.

Thank you.
Interesting to see Brexit playing out this way in this particular issue

Gosh, August has flown by and I shall revert to my timorous canine persona

Can I ask a legal qn? If an org can intervene (presumably NOT for closing arguments), can NC cross examine?

Thank you again to Tribunal Tweets!

If an intervenor presents evidence, their witnesses can be cross examined. However, at this stage all they will be doing is making their own submissions regarding how the law should be interpreted. NC may refer to their submission in her closing arguments or her written submissions to explain why they are wrong.

Doh despite being called 'Regulations' didn't occur to me that they were assimilated EU regs.

Strengths our case in my humble non lawyer opinions. Would be surprised if Judge assigned different meaning to the Supreme Court.

Lawyers are gonna lawyer and someone was bound to intervene r.e. meaning of 'sex' here.

I think if it plays out this way it will be good to have this stated in a judgment.

Either way, it will go to appeal on that point. It’s most unlikely that a (mere) Employment Tribunal judge of first instance is going to have the final word on a question of law of that magnitude.

As someone who still believes that, despite its many shortcomings, the UK would be much better off if we'd stayed in the EU, that is a depressing thought. But then again, hasn't the UK ignored EU court rulings in the past, and the world has continued to rotate on its axis?

I do wonder if the Judge will find a way to avoid the questions altogether!

Not a lawyer disclaimer but as I'm still up and those who know more probably aren't...

EU regulations and directives are different.

Regulations - such as the workplace one - automatically become law, and override any conflicting domestic law.

Judiciary is independent and upholds rule of law. So a private citizen (Sandie) can bring her case to court.

In which case, it is a depressing thought. But only cos the world's gone mad. Not least, Germany.

Why are they being given permission to intervene so late in the day?
Would they have sought this back at the beginning of the tribunal and we've only just found out about it?
Or is it because the need for different perspectives to be put forward only becomes clear as the case progresses, so Transluscent (JR?) only just sought permission?

@Kurkara
I think the reason they are being allowed to intervene so late is because this case is one of the first following the SC judgement and it is highly likely there will be an appeal. The judge and both parties therefore want to minimise the grounds for an appeal by allowing all the arguments to be heard.

I suspect it was the intervention by FWS that prompted Translucent to intervene. No offence intended but GC organisations seem more on the ball with interventions etc. so TRA organisations tend to follow their lead.

A third-party intervention can happen at any stage of a case right up to closing submissions. If they had asked to intervene at the beginning of the tribunal, the court would have decided whether to allow them to do so before hearings began. They have presumably chosen to intervene now because they think they can assist the tribunal to make the right decision. Anyone can ask to intervene if they think they can add value to the proceedings beyond the evidence and submissions that will be made by the main parties. It is then up to the court to decide whether to allow an intervention.

Thanks @Harassedevictee and @prh47bridge. I realise mine are very basic questions but it's good to have this board because I'm completely ignorant of the usual process.