NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #52

[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 51: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5402652-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-51 1 September 2025 to 2 September 2025

I think what gave rise to it was JR's saying he was "two years into transition" (I typed "his transition" which was what memory told me she'd said, but for her sake I hope she didn't ;-) ) which was an exaggeration. So I think the Judge was ever so politely (e.g. at one point he said "into the second year" whereas she had definitely said "two years", which is very different) picking her up on that.

Bah, Michael Foran says he'll go live on this "another day", which day unspecified. How dare he be tired when we want to hear from him? ;-)

Still behind. However, I find it very shaky for JR to be saying that Maggie Currer said 1 in 1,000/3,000 for DSD’s whilst the Claimant stated 4 in 10,000. The implication being that Maggie Currer was red hot on this topic. Now, Maggie Currer (in her evidence on 27th and 29th July) stated that her knowledge of DSDs was from study material back in medical school. Also stated that XYY was Kleinfelters both days. She said she’d need to look. Maybe Isla told her what the politically expedient claim was.

edited to change 1 in 10,000 to 4 in 10,000 as per TT.

Re: VV - I think it means that at the end of his evidence, where you need to swear to the truth of it he has altered the bit that says ‘ these facts are within my knowledge’

Not that it is at all relevant in this case.

I think it means that VV used a different form of words at the end of his witness statement, the bit that says the contents are true and that he has knowledge of them etc.

For those who were watching live - did Big Sond really ask JR what sex Upton is, as bluntly as all that?

(TT's summary sounded a bit more polite/roundabout, which is why I ask...)

JR Difficult. From memory, BMA have said terminology used here isn't medically literate. As a lawyer, not a medic - sex is complicated and nuanced.
J on vast majority of cases
JR Not complicated
J And with regard to R2?
JR Not complicated and not making that argument
J evidence we have is id ing as female...
JR No need to take instructions. FWS has had said it has re bio sex and DU in evidence not talking as a lawyer.

I don't see how they could successfully argue that the manner in which SP raised her objections to DU was unacceptable when DU admitted that there was no acceptable way for her to behave other than to change alongside him.

Also she'd been advised (can't remember who by) to discuss the situation with DU after getting nowhere by raising it with her line manager.

In more ways than one!

Hard to remember now! But I think that's what the judge said, ie, what sex would you say Dr Upton is.

It could be objectively reasonable even if not perceived so by DU, or it could be objectively unreasonable and perceived so by everyone. DU’s opinion doesn’t necessarily count either way.

Just catching up after being in meetings all day

Christ!!!! I mean it's all very interesting from an intellectual pov but poor Sandie! This is her life

TT's final afternoon tweets

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1962877203894481241.html

He did, he said what biological sex.

It was a rather blunt question and did very much put JR in a sticky predicament! Hence his do you need to take instructions, but I only wrote part of what was said the bits that stood out.

The process for getting a KC in the first place has changed quite a bit - it used to be more like a long service award. (And there were oddities, like "parliamentary silks", where a barrister who was elected an MP automatically became a KC - I think there are only a few very elderly cases still alive)

These days you have to apply, and there's quite an involved process to go through which I don't know the details of. Since it's a crown appointment it will formally conclude with a letter from the PM to the King saying "I recommend the following 100 people to be appointed KC", the King will say "seems legit" and the Letters Patent are issued.

So the process to revoke the title will need to involve some kind of specially convened panel to investigate misconduct, which will end in the relevant authority (the Lord Chancellor?) sending a recommendation to the PM who will send a recommendation to the King.

This is the heart of the Jolyon situation, where he's no longer registered as a barrister but he's still got the KC title. Because revocation is such a bureaucratic headache, the bar for doing it would have to involve quite serious professional misconduct. The legal authorities can't just send a letter to the King saying that Jolyon should be stripped of his KC because he's become a lolcow.

How very refreshing! Sunlight and all that.

Nauti will be deciding whether the thread wrangling will be passed down the female line

What a day!

At the end of Woman's Hour this morning Nuala McGovern said that they will be talking about the case tomorrow, which I thought was pretty astonishing. Not sure if today's developments will affect that.

Wait, Jolyon is a KC?! Do they only give it to complete fuckwits these days then?

IANAL so can someone explain why JR is allowed to keep saying "I'll come back to you on that" so much without the judge either pulling her up on it, or giving her a quick moment to confer with the respondents or whomever she needs to "fact" check with?

To me it's a clear diversion tactic, and she's had plenty of time and presumably the experience necessary to understand her case and what sort of questions she'd likely be asked in closing submissions.

😂😊

Whilst I agree it's delay and obfuscation, the files for this run to many thousands of pages.

The solicitor will likely be frantically looking for bits that they need to provide or at least taking notes on what the Judge is asking for so they can dig it out later.

They won't have everything easily to hand. It does take time.

I'm glad this is done for now.

I've got a thumping headache, bet the judge has too.

I think I'm going to get my tea and have an early night.

But before that, I've read NCs submission does anyone have a link to SRs?

She's been given a metric fuckton of leeway in this case, including her constant interruptions of NC. I hope this is so it minimises grounds for appeal. Fingers crossed, as otherwise it seems blatantly unfair.