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

"from herald
11:21am
We think - though it is not entirely clear - that Ms Russell is trying to get the tribunal to consider"

My emphasis underlined 😂😂😂

Who was that Amnesty boss in Ireland who said women should be stripped of civil rights if we didn't believe men can be women? One of JR'S friends, no doubt.

TBH I’m not sure what amendment she is asking for.

Anyone know?

NC along lines of not what she said it's the way that she said it
👏

JR's position is a real slippery slope into who is deserving or undeserving of protections in law.

Has she properly thought through the implications of this line of argument?

.

she's on a frolic of her own.

I know this is a legal term from a long-ago case (Story v Ashton) and has often been used since, but I love it.

BTW, and NC has often demonstrated it, "A v B" is read as "A and B"
That's about all I remember from 4 years of part-time law training.

see herald best guess above

From TT

along lines of not what she said it's the way that she said it. They seek to add two factual assertions: This is factual - objectionable way C manifested her belief, but we still don't know the detail of that. And to add that that's the reason for the acts of which the C complain

NC We still don't know with clarity - R proposed additions
[ reads c manner expressed].
We are not told on what occasions this was objectionable, or in what way. There are a number of potential occasions that this could have arisen. Obvious one, which appears to be JR focus,

NC making exactly this point, but much more clearly and eloquently.

From what I'm reading here I think she's going with if you can't blind them with science, baffle them with bullshit. Channelling her inner Judith Butler.

it wasn't quite like that, fact-wise, but I take your general point.

I think she might be trying to say that it's the manner in which SP expressed her objection to DU that was the problem (a Higgs type case) - not that the objection itself was an issue? And that they have extra evidence from an email that shows she was a bigot.

But I'm not really sure.

It’s only versus when it’s a criminal case. So R (Rex/Regina - King/Queen) v criminal.

I think JR is trying to shift her argument claiming it's routine and just a matter of legal presentation, and NC is countering that she's claiming different facts from the facts she was claiming to start with, and it isn't clear what facts she's now claiming (e.g. what exactly was objectionable about the claimaint's manifestation of her beliefs, and when), and if they'd known this was the claim to begin with they might have questioned differently. So shouldn't be allowed to change it now.

Razzle dazzle 'em.

from herald
11:29am
Ms Cunningham says the application is "unequivocally and certainly" a bid to "amend substantive factual assertions on which the respondent relies."
They say the objectionable-manifestation argument is being stretched far beyond the Christmas Eve incident.
They argued the respondents have never properly spelled out whether they say Ms Peggie’s protected beliefs were “manifested” only in her clash with Dr Upton, or also in other settings — for example, when she used masculine pronouns in conversations with colleagues, or in meetings with managers around her suspension.
Her lawyers say this amounts to trying to amend the factual basis of the case at the very last minute. They point out NHS Fife has known since at least January — and arguably as far back as October last year when disciplinary allegations were raised — what their case rested on.
“It is incomprehensible,” they told the judge, “that they haven’t made this application until this late stage.”

That does appear to be the argument being made.

IANAL but I think the issue was that the H&S Regs were an EU reg that therefore was imnported into UK law at a time when the trans issue was not really around. If I understood the issue correctly then JR is likely to argue that subsequent EU changes re trans rights should be imported into the regs but our lovely thread lawyer thought that the Brexit legislation would preclude this. So not to do with the ECHR. Really sorry that I can't go back and find the post as it was much more clearly expressed.

NC is not particularly impressed with the respondents behaviour!

Oh, really. I did not remember that. Thank you for mentioning it.

(So I remember nothing at all from 4 years study and exam passing. ☺)

Does someone who fakes contemporaneous notes and fakes malpractice/doesn't report it in a timely manner deserve protection under the EA?

is with DU conversation, or might it be using pronouns for DU in conversation with managers/in meetings/ etc. Application not accurately formulated but is attempt to amend facts on which R replies.

Should have been clear to R legal team - by January, when disciplinary against C formulated, in 2023. I think yes, they need your permission to amend.

As to factors to guide exercise of discretion: how substantial is amendment, timing and manner of application, balance of prejudice - that R have been respresented throughout by experienced

NC running through all the delaying tactics of the NHS Fife side, and pointing out that they have had over a year to come up with their defence. Now, at the latest possible time, they want to change their defence.

NC that R have been respresented throughout by experienced team including one who is now a KC.
😁