NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #51

[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 resumed 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 #50 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 50: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5387893-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-50 7 August 2025 to 1 September 2025

"The claimants behaviour... so unpleasantly, is behaviour that ought not to be given the protection of the Equality Act."

Yes, but with more words.

From TT

R didn't need to set out full case re harassment. And couldn't cos Higgs not finished.

J But EAT decision

JR Before Higgs wasn't inappropriate manifestation. That is development of idea. R case has been acted as it did cos of inappropriate way C spoke to DU at Xmas Eve

JR You have heard why R witnesses felt what C did went too far and why they felt what they did was appropriate. R1 response was proportionate and justified. You will need to include Higgs analysis, cos this is a Higgs type case. That's why we don't think we need to amend.

She loves to use more words.

GET TO THE POINT JR

I think NC is going to have some things to say about all of this flapdoodle.

Is she allowed to though, wot with Not In Scotland.

Hahaha... if that's what she's relying on then she must know that's extremely shaky! Brilliant.

I hope so, it's the only way we'll know what the hell JR is trying to achieve.

From TT

Cos not necessary in Scottish tribunals. But if so, is in Mr Watson's email. If any actions in case found to relate to C belief, these are to do with manner C expressed. Issue 6A to be added, if inappropriate actions are related to manifestation of C belief.

I think @prh47bridge anticipated and dealt with this point in the last thread and his view was that the legislation that implemented Brexit meant that this argument should fail. Sorry I'm paraphrasing but am not on my laptop so can't go back and find their actual post.

JR is done onto NC, but no sound

Has NC publishing the full text of her final submission caused JR to realise that she has no chance and so change the thrust of her arguments?

from herald
11:21am
We think - though it is not entirely clear - that Ms Russell is trying to get the tribunal to consider an allegation of racist language by Ms Peggie (which she denies), even though it wasn’t in the original pleadings.
There was an allegation Ms Peggie called a doctor a “P**i.” (Edited by MNHQ)
This had been reported to Charlotte Myles, a clinical service manager at NHS Fife, who was tasked with reviewing Sandie Peggie's suspension.
But Ms Myles, when giving evidence, said the doctor couldn’t recollect it.
Ms Russell is stressing that just because there isn’t corroborating evidence doesn’t mean the allegation is false — “absence of evidence not evidence of absence.”
She also argues that in employment tribunals, the rules on pleadings are looser than in the civil courts, citing McPhail, a leading Scottish text on court practice, to say that the case can still be considered.
Finally, Ms Russell says this is a “Higgs-type case” — referring to the recent Court of Appeal decision which held that while people are entitled to hold protected beliefs, employers may lawfully act if those beliefs are manifested in an “objectionable” or disproportionate way. In her submission, that is what happened in the Christmas Eve incident.

Is this her extra "15 minutes"? She's used up 10 so far (presumably it makes some sense if you are listening live)

Aghhhhh

Is the "missing out of an important legal something or other until now" not entirely JR's fault?

Not to me!

Mic back on

But if that’s about the European Court of Human Rights, it’s not an EU thing. It was set up by Churchill following the war and is separate to the EU. It’s the Council of Europe.

Ah OK so all of the wrongdoing should be overlooked because Sandie was such a massive meanie. If only she had a nice softly spoken (not necessarily middle class, but maybe... a little bit more like JR speaks...) then none of this would have happened.

Slam dunk £250000 fine for Sandie then. Fair enough?

Is JR saying yes NHSF and DrU were discriminatory but SP is a big fat transphobic, racist meanie so she doesn’t deserve protection of the EA?

It really didn't.

From TT

JR Need to deal with all legal arguments. C has been aware of argument we have been running since Jan but has also responded to it orally and in writing and in qs put to our witnesses c if their actions proportionate etc.

Not granting it would cause prejudice to the R in not dealing with important part of their defence and thus not dealing with the case justly if important relevant legal feature of case not addressed and analysed. All I have to say on amendment application.

J NC?

NC Re if R needs permission to amend. R now seeks to argue defence

I think I'm going to need Michael Foran to explain what's going on now, later.

Listen for NC to make a veiled warning that allowing the respondents' amendments will cause the Claimant to appeal on that particular point.