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

What JR wants is to be allowed to amend the grounds of resistance etc., but without any recalling of witnesses. On previous pattern, the Judge is likely to go for that, which will be unfair to the Claimant as NC argued. OTOH if he goes on to find for the Claimant, it won't matter.... Most likely outcome?

I may have missed this upthread (I'm tribunal watching too!) but has anyone legal explained the Big Issue in Higgs which is responsible for JR's request?
Naomi mentioned Higgs in her submission, and said that (I think) she wouldn't deal with it as the respondent wasn't.
So Higgs, anyone??

I'm sure you have plenty of time to hobble there and back again. 😁

This tribunal is never on time.

Happy Anniversary

Surely Fife and their legal team will be on a sticky wicket if they argue stuff in court that has been found unproven in their internal processes?

Yes and Theodore Upton confirmed that when NC questioned him.

The only thing Sandie Peggie could have done that would have been acceptable, as far as NHS Fife and Theodore Upton were concerned, was for her to shut up and take her clothes off.

A well-deserved chance to do something nice, and a welcome indication that you are on the mend
Thanks for doing the TTing for us, on crutches!

Are they just trying to string it out past the time when the SC lays out its final advice on the FWS case / how it applies practically (in every possible situation, as some people cannot, apparently, understand their original findings, even when written in Plain English)? Maybe this is the new version of the law as they wish it to be, not as it is written, now that Stonewall appears to have read the room a little better and backed off.

Edited for typo.

Also to smile and give direct eye contact while doing so.

Can Big Sond say they will be ignoring JR'S new argument?

The SC isn't going to do any such thing.

Kind of struggling to understand what's happening.

Is it that, even though many of NHS Fife's witnesses have already admitted that there was no way SP could have expressed her views that they wouldn't have taken issue with or considered it 'harassing', they now want to change their argument to 'it's not what she said, it's the way that she said it'?

I think JR is riding two horses here. The Fife one is probably running out of wind. The GLP one will pick up Upton and carry on running.

I do wonder how much of the (apparent) leeway the judge has granted to JR is premised on avoiding grounds for appeal. Because it does feel a lot like she's often getting cut a lot of slack.

The issue there is that whether the manifestation of protected beliefs was reasonable or not is an objective test for the court to decide; whether DU or NHSF would have found any manifestation reasonable or even none at all, doesn’t influence whether any given manifestation was actually reasonable.

I think it's sort of baked in to running a case that has so many contradictory elements. Protect NHS Fife. Protect NHS Fife witnesses who did the things to seriously undermine their case. Uphold gender identity ideology. Protect Upton at all costs. Destroy Peggie.

It's too much.

Yeah. I think NC's arguing is belt and braces really - to some extent she has indeed anticipated this, but all the same, it wasn't what JR was supposed to be arguing, so NC is objecting to the change.

Oh, I know, and even if they did, it would just confirm, again, that twam, but lots of bodies are pinning false hopes on a different outcome.

I’m thinking that JR’s assertion that SP doesn’t deserve the protection of the Equality Act is to say she may be allowed to express her beliefs, but she was ver, ver, ver rude and so the saying of it - he, man, prison - is why she doesn’t deserve protection.

This is infuriating. It’s not what she said but the way that she said it ….utter bollocks.

Upton’s has already admitted that there is no manner in which Sandie could have expressed her views that would not have been objectionable.

This is really the evidence of the TRA strategy of silencing women.

This could make difficulties;
If J agrees SP will suffer greatly because of prolonged indecision.
If J disagrees Will it leave grounds for appeal?
IMHO there will be an appeal over the decision any way especially because NHS F could not let the matter rest.
This Level does not set a precedent.
Can Judge abandon the Tribunal and send it to higher Level?

Michael Foran has tweeted!

https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1962834006740738137?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

The SC has already ruled. They aren't going to do anything else.

All of it. The nicer Big Sond is to JR, the less concerned I am he will find for DU and NHSF.

“Bananarama” defence 😂😂😂