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

Wonder if Jamie is going to be included in these proceedings. Would be a real treat to hear from him I'm sure!

Hear that? .. It's the sound of NHS Fife's management team furiously deleting WhatsApp groups after an unminuted Teams call

I wanted to ask if The Bananarama Defence is a term coined recently by Michael Foran, or if it’s a classic.

I’ve tried it in a couple of search engines and get nothing other than MF, just The Secret Barrister’s tweets which are great but not the same thing.

It’s something special to have come up with a term like that, especially if it continues to be used in legal commentary. I’d say it’s something to be proud of, but pride might be seen as a vice not a virtue, and also connected to PRIDE.

I think this is what Foran was referring to, and The Secret Barrister misunderstood.

I also think that if JR is successful in changing the plea (?) that SP may resign and would then have a case of constructive dismissal against Fife.

Also to be clear, the deliberations in October will be private, like a jury discussing a verdict.

The panel is a

• Judge,
• an HR professional from industry (any industry, not specific to the case), and
• a trade union professional, who might be an officer of a union or a representative in the workplace.

Both lay members can be former professionals. So you have a legal person, a company person and a workers’ representative person.

They will consider the evidence, the submissions and the law, then agree on whether each of the points claimed have been found in favour of the claimant (SP) or the respondents, (Fife and DU). I think it is possible to find that DP did nothing wrong and Fife did on separate points and vice versa.

I believe on the main count of allowing a man identifying as a woman into the female CR will be found in SP’s favour because that’s against the Equality Act 2010, as clarified by the SC. I also think that SP will win on expressing her GC beliefs because that’s against was found in Forstater.

I cannot comment on other things because I don’t know the full claim, but Fife not having proper procedures, policies and having witnesses as investigators will likely go against them.

I wouldn’t be surprised if they find that DU did nothing wrong in being in the CR because Fife let him, but at the same time, they shouldn’t have let him, because of the law, and also they didn’t have a policy. They should have dealt with SP’s concerns at the time, so this wouldn’t have happened, and their actions were not proportionate.

I would also expect DU to receive words of sanction, if not have to pay compensation because he lied to the court. This is very serious and I wouldn’t be surprised if Fife investigated him and took disciplinary action.

IANAL but did study Law at university.

<Snorts>

I'm sorry for laughing at the thought of you having to start another 13678945 threads.

I am a bad beetle.

She's on sick leave now, right, not still suspended?

Sorry for causing confusion re bananarama!

One thing bothering me is how it can be useful to get these people as witnesses in the new action, given that they've already been witnesses here and have by now had ample time to modify their stories to fit their preferred facts [eta or vv]. Legally, could they be held to account if their new accounts differ to what they said here? Can the transcripts of what they said here become evidence in the new action? I can't think of another way to ensure that they'd have to be consistent (or account for inconsistencies).

On the 11.99th hour goalpost moving, I think the panel are likely to refuse. Kemp wanted to get to the end of subs & questions without having either team biting his ear, & also needs time to consult the (legal) authorities & compose a good set of reasons. Granting the wrecking amendment motion leads to appeal by C & nightmare case management. Refuse it, & R has a steep uphill battle to even appeal, with poor prospect of success plus further attacks likely over conduct, competence, track record, & expense.

Do I recall correctly that the judge said that they'd be doing their deliberations and then after that there'd be the decision on whether to allow the amendment?

Seems odd to me, because deciding to allow the amendment could completely undermine the deliberations. The evidence part being re-opened, new cross-examinations, new arguments, new closing submissions.

Very fair summary of the case and its surrounding context on Woman's Hour today, I thought. I listened with some trepidation and was hugely relieved.

Obviously I'm not defending it, but let's get the facts straight: Amnesty were amongst the many signatories to a pro-trans letter - full of the usual hyperbolics, headlined
an open letter calling for solidarity for our trans siblings on this Trans Day of Remembrance 20 November, 2020

• which included this: We call on media, and politicians to no longer provide legitimate representation for those that share bigoted beliefs, that are aligned with far right ideologies and seek nothing but harm and division.

Amongst the many groups which put their name to it, were the National Women’s Council of Ireland and Amnesty International.

Amnesty responded to the outrage caused by the letter by issuing a statement which included this:
the letter asks for media and politicians to not grant legitimacy to those spreading vitriol or misinformation, or to present them as legitimate. This is being framed by some as a call to take away their – and more broadly, women’s – political representation. When read in context, in this letter we are clearly not calling for that.

NOT defending it, just tidying up the facts around it!

I think he will decide on the amendment first, during the time set aside for deliberations.

It may be that if he allows the amendment, he will also say it doesn’t have to be relitigated because there have been submissions on objectionable conduct by and already as a legal point. But NC may then say the R/s haven’t presented evidence of objectionable conduct, and they must do that. SP must have the right to be questioned on that. And NC must be able to question those alleging objectionable conduct, such as DU for being the primary witness, and the HR team, senior doctors etc. That will take days.

The judge may refuse the amendment, but that has to be on solid legal grounds when he does, hence taking advice on the law and deciding during the deliberations period, and also he’s on holiday before that.

Well, they did go to town a bit on SP's dodgy social media as an indication of character, without giving the clear balancing story of DrU having been caught out manipulating evidence in a variety of different ways and basically being a lying liar who lies.

Lol at the divided legal opinion about which song the Bananarama defence refers to.
I'm imagining a future court case where Bananarama is cited as an authority and there is much arcane disputation about which lyrics apply.
Perhaps even an application at the last minute to amend a plea to specify the correct song.

If Beff Upton has legally changed his name, I suspect that's why the court agreed to his former name being redacted. As a comparison I think Tiffany Scott's various ridiculous monikers were respected for the most part.

Incidentally Scott's Wikipedia entry is eye-opening. It seems to avoid pronouns completely. The juxtaposition of his being approved for transfer to a women's prison and being described as Scotland's most dangerous prisoner is fucking terrifying. He died in February 2024 I've not heard if there's been an inquest.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Scott_(prisoner)

I THINK the judge meant that the panel were all busy going on holiday until mid October(?); the date on which they had intended to meet to deliberate. Actually I am confused and will wait for Mr Foran to explain it.

If they meant they would decide for or against Peggie based on pleadings before the latest NHS Fife effort, surely NHS Fife would appeal. If they decide that they must include the latest pleading, without a retrial, Naomi has already said that she will appeal.

I wonder if Kate Searle, Maggie Currer and Esther Davidson are now reconsidering their staunch support of Dr Upton.

@prh47bridge Says: If, say, an allegation is made that an employee has used racist language directed at another employee, the disciplinary process that follows may well be reasonable even if the process ends with a finding that no racist language was used. if the process is reasonable, the fact the employee was found to be innocent would not help them with a claim against their employer.

That seems wrong, it is as if "Ah well, you know! There's no smoke without fire!

Would be a logical argument. Or he was accused of something like this before therefor he is probably guilty. Surely it can't be a legal truism.

@NebulousSupportPostcard , ‘Upton appeared only briefly but made quite an impact as a beligerent, arrogant and quite imposing respondent.’

Yes indeed. He said he would impose himself upon a woman who had requested only female care. She would have to keep protesting to treatment by him (if she was able to, I suppose). He would only stop then. I don’t know if he would exact revenge by reporting her as hateful for that though.

And a man who inserted/imposed himself in the women’s changing room even though it was apparent (and then explicit) that he was making women feel very uncomfortable. The gentle, sweet, fragrant poppet.

I suppose JR et al didn’t claim he was decent and honest, though? I don’t think!

I think there's also a legal analysis of 'All Rise' by Blue

I think the point is just that if the employer has reasonable grounds to open an investigation, does so promptly and properly following their sensible procedures, and finds that the employee did nothing wrong, then it won't work for the employee to go to an ET and say "you harassed me by having this investigation into me", even though the investigation found the employee had done nothing wrong. Which is fair enough, if there's reason to think someone MAY have done something wrong, the employer has to be allowed to investigate!

It may be time to put your "fake your own death plan" in action.

I've been trying to popularise the Buford T Justice doctrine, but it's not as catchy as Bananarama.

Would 'nauticant' then become her deadname?😄
edited when it occurred to me that we might have to go back and redact 50+ previous threads to remove the deadname'!

Do NC and JR get any further opportunity to have input into the Tribunal's decision as to whether to allow the amendment? I had the impression that not. NC wanted them to adjourn and make the decision yesterday; I thought the representations they made yesterday were going to be all there was.

My impression was that the Judge is now on holiday for some unspecified period, but that the decision will then just be made and reported to the parties some time after that. I suppose that if the next opportunity for them to consider this is in the period set aside for deliberations in October, they might make that decision and then immediately proceed to deliberate, either on the current grounds if they turn down the amendment or on the amended grounds if they decide not to allow any more witnesses?