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

So, JR losing so wants to change submission at last minute? This surely can't be allowed? NCs whole case has been based on the original submission and witnesses questioned accordingly. If this is allowed then all the questioning would need to be repeated? IANAL

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.

Isn't this all rather undermined by the fact that the NHS Fife investigation cleared her of all charges?

From TT

acknowledgment and didn't. Suggest this should be taken into account in your decision - that you haven't had candid explanation and apology. Ask you to look at Mervin and BBC 2020 - you may not have it.

[NC summarises - deals with list of issues, when put in, when/how changed

I'm afraid if they were my hands they'd only be doing this 🖕

Fortunately, I never went into law.

I can't seem to tag prh47bridge as they haven't yet been on this thread but hopefully they will be along later and can clarify the point.

Crikey, Merrymouse, great point - I had completely forgotten that 'minor detail'!

Is this a bid by JR to establish grounds for an appeal if the judge doesn’t allow this last minute change to their defence and they lose?

And I presume if the judge does grant it, it becomes the grounds for appeal for Sandie if she loses?

lose-lose all round for Big Sond.

Surely at this point anything new or changing should be only due to the most exceptional information that has come to your attention that blows a huge hole in the other sides case.

That doesn't seem to be the case, although I may have missed something, which is highly likely given the waffle overload today

I feel sorry for Big Sond.

And agree that bringing in her behaviour when she was cleared by Fife is an odd move, NC should really point that out.

I would have thought that the judge would have little patience with anything that might extend the tribunal for even longer - but perhaps JR is trying to create grounds for an appeal?

NC: "AND FINALLY THEY FACED REALITY AND... [HERE WE ARE]"

Has this even been mentioned in this hearing? If not I wonder why it's not relevant?

So is JR arguing that SP MIGHT have misgendered Dr U when talking about him to other colleagues (not in front of him), which means they are justified in trying to "burn the witch". Wouldn't one or more of the witnesses have needed to mention this and shouldn't this allegation have been put to SP?

Shouldn't the NHS Fife investigation have covered this, too?

Incomprehensible decisions taken not by a litigant in person but by a seasoned legal team.

Go Naomi!

From TT

etc]. Your task is to determine the application and manner that best serves justice between parties. Not J task to smooth out things arising between parties and representatives. Where party seeking to amend is acting in person, tribunals may stray to accommodate litigant.

But here R throughout by seasoned experienced legal team. They agreed the list of issues at various dates. First part of hearing concluded in Feb but R still didn't apply to amend. Apparently didn't decide to apply after reading our subs last week. And finally they faced reality

NC
But here R throughout by seasoned experienced legal team. ..
Keep point that out, NC, it's a winner!

I will try and search when there is a break xx

One of the reasons I so admire NC is her ability to stay outwardly calm and she's so articulate!

I'd be so full of angry adrenaline my hands would be shaking and I'd barely be able to string a coherent sentence together that wasn't just "Ach would you just fuck off, you dickhead!" 😅

Edit: Fortunately I did not go into law either 😂

Health and Safety regs have evolved like building regs. The Building Standards for toilets BS6465 (4 parts) has been around for ages. Helpfully some of it was made freely accessible to the public under Document T. In it you will see that male and female toilets are still the ones workplaces and venues like shops, cinemas etc should build first as these are the best for health and safety.
Theres no evidence to suggest making toilets mixed sex is safer or healthier.

They've come nowhere close to facing reality.

From TT

late last night. All decisions except the last are inexplicable. A statement of case can't be amended by skeleton argument. Parties need to agree. A party is entitled to run case to meet issues set down in list. List of issues is the map and compass, guides every aspect on both sides.

Goes through list to make sure all covered, and if not in list is likely to be missed. Finally - it's an extraordinary unattractive aspect of R application that in the very first point they make at para 1 of application

Extraordinarily unattractive aspect of R's application is to seek to blame the C.
NC is on fire.

"The Claimants legal team are baddies and didn't tell us about our mistake so you need to let us fix it now"

JRs application summed up.

This is why Fife released the statement about SP's disciplinary that concluded as it did. They baked in that need for reflective discussion because they had no choice but to clear her of gross misconduct - so they concluded that the problem was the unkind inappropritae manner in which she raised her concern. So SP gets a punishment reflection, and they get this attempt at an amendment. Which is ludicrous, and left to the last minute because it is ludicrous, but here we are.

I think she is introducing grounds for appeal here for Dr Upton. On the grounds that his legal team have made an absolute arse of this! 😳