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

Fife's late disclosures have revealed that certain individuals got her suspension extended after the review concluded that SP should be allowed to return to work. It is too late to add this as detriments to her existing claim, hence the new claim. It seems there is also the small matter of the mutating press release, which may also give rise to a further cause for action.

I think the problem here is that the employer seems to be attempting to defend their actions by claiming that the employee DID do something wrong - even though the investigation found that they didn't.

ooo thanks bridge

And people say there's no such thing as a job for life any more.

No, the judge was just being firm in his decision that he needs quite a bit of time to read the legal arguments presented and explain them to the other panel members, and given their limited availability, it is likely to eat into the time currently set aside for deliberations. I got the impression that all he knew for sure was that he couldn't achieve that in the remaining time yesterday.

It was so interesting watching them and listening (though I was too absorbed in it to take notes). NC and the J were both being robust with each other, though also conciliatory and polite when they had had their say. It seemed that NC probably knew what the answer would be but wanted to present her argument in full to have it transcribed on the record.

JR seemed by contrast like a posh lady snake, shedding her skin as the situation shifted. At times smug, or schoolmarmish, but when on the back foot she was simpering, smiling, and leaning in, like a child seeking approval from the headteacher. I'm so glad that she and Upton have each other, because it must be utterly maddening to see your own behaviour mirrored in ways that thoroughly confound you and defeat your own purposes!

😆

They never for a second thought that they would be exposed, or their actions examined or even questioned. It is striking how little the rights of women seem to figure in all of this. When a man wants, a man gets. All the pandering to men like this, and corresponding dismissal of women’s rights to allow them to do exactly what they want.

Chances that NHSFife engages different counsel for any further legal challenges? Press your buttons now, please.

Would their professional indemnity insurance cover their non-clinical behaviour?

I believe the term was coined by NC (who was apparently unaware of the classic Ella Fitzgerald recording of the song).

Generally NHS indemnity covers individuals for clinical actions. Everyone should have the own cover with a defence organisation in case ones own interests diverge from the employers, perhaps they want to settle but you would prefer to defend your reputation. The kicker - those organisations decide on the merits of the case whether to act for you, it is not automatic that they will!

They'll be too busy checking out the sick leave policy.

Been following and lurking. Can anyone explain the implications for Serle et al if Peggie is successful in the new claim?

I’m very interested to understand this given how many of these cases seem to have theme of people supporting the likes of Upton at the expense of women with no consequences.

Much of the evidence for the new claim comes from emails disclosed by Fife in this claim. They can't change those. They could try changing their accounts if this new claim gets to court (provided their new version of events is consistent with the emails), but that will inevitably lead to SP's barrister asking them to explain why their account has changed - in essence, were you lying then, or are you lying now.

NHSFife is included.

Extract from archived article: https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25437310.sandie-peggie-latest-nurse-brings-new-claim-nhs-fife/?ref=twtrec

"Ms Peggie's solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, said new action was raised on August 6 against Fife Health Board (FHB), Dr Kate Searle, Dr Maggie Currer and Esther Davidson.

The latest claim is brought under the Equality Act 2010 and alleges harassment and victimisation linked to Peggie’s gender-critical beliefs.

It is separate from her ongoing case against Dr Upton and the health board.
Ms Gribbon added that further claims of harassment and victimisation would also be lodged in the coming months against NHS Fife and “possibly other” employees."

They'll be too busy checking out the sick leave policy.

And deleting their WhatsApp messages.

I had not noticed that Sandy Kemp is the author of a book called How to Win Your Case. I wonder whether NC and JR have read it??

https://www.bloomsburyprofessional.com/uk/how-to-win-your-case-9781526516763/

This is the first time that NC has briefly fallen in my high estimation.

Bananarama indeed.

Just in case anyone had missed it, that LegalCheek article about the Secret Barrister and Bananarama is from 2018, so nothing to do with Foran's reference to the band!

I’m sorry Nauticant, but there’s not enough popcorn in the world for these threads. I’m hooked.

Come now, we can hardly call it the Jimmie Lunceford defence: of all the many artists that have recorded it, Bananarama definitely have the best name for the job.

(A pity she couldn't work in a reference to the shim sham, traditionally danced to Lunceford's version.)

The question is whether the employer has acted reasonably. If an employee is accused of using racist language towards another employee, the employer must investigate. That isn't a case of "no smoke without fire". Starting a disciplinary process doesn't presuppose guilt. And a sensible employer will investigate every case where an employee is accused of racist language. They won't wait until there are multiple accusations.

To give a different example - this case is hypothetical, but it is based on cases that have happened. Suppose an employer thinks an employee is stealing from them. They conduct a fair disciplinary process, investigating the allegations properly and giving the employee the opportunity to defend himself. At the end of the process, they conclude that the employee is indeed stealing and dismiss him. However, they have reported the thefts to the police. The police find evidence that conclusively proves the employee's innocence and shows that the actual thief was another employee. The dismissed employee takes the employer to court, alleging unfair dismissal. Sadly for that employee, he will lose provided the disciplinary process was conducted fairly and the employer reasonably believed that he was the thief. The fact he was factually innocent would be irrelevant.

All those staff members that made decisions that ultimately changed the course of Sandie's life.

They, inexcusably, added stress to a period of time when her dad was dying.

They failed to protect Sandie and allow her the things she was legally entitled to.

They ignored her concerns and then punished her when she tried to sort it herself.

They gossiped about and slandered Sandie to an horrific degree.

They acted as judge, jury and executioner without even asking for her version of events.

Some went outside of the remit of their roles.

Some just didn't carry out their roles.

They lied and obfuscated to Sandie, their own legal counsel, and ultimately in a court of law.

And for what?

Because some man wanted to take his clothes off in the women's changing room and watch women take theirs off.

I hope Sandie drags every single one of them through the courts.

I think Bananarama is perfect because it emphasises the ludicrous nature of the claim. The Fitzgerald defence sounds like it could be something sensible.

The only direct consequence is that they may be ordered to pay damages to SP. It is, of course, possible their insurers or NHS Fife will pay any damages for them. There may be indirect consequences if their behaviour is considered to impact their fitness to practice and/or their continuing employment by Fife, but that is not a matter for the courts.