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

Cue headlines about how the NHS is deprived of senior doctors signed off due to stress by vindictive court challenge from racist nurse.

Maybe a small pile of clothes on the beach next to a empty Tunnocks tea cake packet.

Along with photos in her phone gallery, left behind with the clothes, that show nauticant standing next to a canoe made out of tea cake wrappers.

Can I ask what happens to DU if the Tribunal finds he lied in court?

I would presume he could be subject to contempt of court action, but perhaps aggravated damages to SP?

What happens about his employment as that would be gross misconduct to lie about said employment in court?

What happens about his professional registration as lying to a court is professional misconduct, and would erode trust in a doctor who might therefore lie about health issues or on patients’ notes?

Can such actions by his employer and/or the GMC be taken on the basis of the Tribunal’s findings, or would he need to be found guilty of contempt of court first?

I imagine JR, NHS Fife, Upton and others thought they had used the tribunal to crush and punish SP, but this new claim by SP shows she is stronger than ever. A real ‘fuck you’ to them all

I'm starting to worry if another acrimonious dragged-out court case is really in Sandy Peggie's best interest. She's already taking on the union and I don't know about her but I just want this utter mess with NHS Fife to be finished and done. Can she get anything worthwhile out of this new case?

I’ve just read Anne Darwin’s book about her canoe man husband, where she fully acknowledges her role in the whole situation. Fascinating stuff. Though I think she was coerced by him, and that wasn’t fully understood at the time.

Lying under oath is perjury. However, it is highly unlikely that he would be sued for that. Perjury convictions for people giving false evidence in civil cases are extremely rare, as are contempt of court actions.

You are correct that it could lead to an increase in the damages awarded to SP.

NHS Fife and the GMC can take action against him based on the findings of the court. They don't have to wait to see if there is any action for contempt or perjury. As both organisations appear to be captured, I wouldn't hold your breath.

If they find against the individuals I would imagine Fife would need to completely overhaul their HR practices, which would be a win.

Personally I wonder how she can ever go back to work at that hospital.

Though if she did, I would like to imagine a guard of honour, champagne, balloons and wild applause would greet her return.

Thanks for the posters explaining the new case today. I was gobsmacked when I read about it on x a little while ago.
Relieved, as it is way past time TRA staff who bully and scare GC women for daring to recognise truth and reality, are held to account. But also sadness for Sandie who has already gone through so much.

I am grateful for her courage, but wish she didn't have to.

In the case of a racist language claim, would a reasonable employer be expected to initially ask the accused party if they had used the claimed language?

Or is it normal to investigate around the accused party (I can see how a secret investigation might be undertaken in an accusation of theft)

"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."

Based on evidence given to date, in pre-empting an investigation by emailing all her peers to condem SP, Searle discriminated against her protected beliefs (harassment?) and victimised her. And this is before she cuddled up with the other two to interfere in the investigation and disciplinary process. All this came out as evidence in this tribunal - if they had anything less damning surely they would have emphasised it - so I can't see what defence they could have.

I can see how a successful case would benefit women (maybe everyone!) working at NHS Fife in general but I feel less confident about what's in it for Sandy Peggie herself.

Realistically she won't be going back. That was baked in anyway. Damages awards can take account of that.

To that end, I get this decision. May as well do the thing as fully as possible. Her nursing career has gone, so the value of the sacrifice ought to be maximised.

I think Sandie is a) at the fuck you. Fuck all of you stage and b) knows her old life is now impossible due to the extremely hostile working environment.

As she has the backing, which I really hope includes psychological support, it's a case of take them all down as Sandie knows she's not just doing this for her but for all women.

Sorry supplementary question!

Does this means it’s possible Fife/insurance won’t pay?

So there is a possibility they may be personally liable? I’m guessing this is small though as that’s what professional insurance is for?

Sandie's saying 'fuck you all then', and is never going back.

Sandie would also get more damages, though money is never enough to compensate for what happened, and vindication, though an apology might be impossible to get.

A problem that might not be predicted of having unlimited funding for litigation is that one of the big incentives to “letting things go”, “moving on” etc. is removed. In the short term one imagines she’ll have satisfaction, but we can only guess what the long term personal toll will be. To an extent, she is “taking another one for the team”.

I thought the same and then thought that a major win would be to send a message to the whole public sector to warn individuals who want to discriminate against gender critical people that they can't necessarily hide behind their employers, it might land on them, personally. A pretty powerful message to send in the coming years of individuals seeking to disregard the Supreme Court judgment in their employment.

Edit: The reason I didn't mention the private sector is that I think they'll be able to get on track because of the profit motive and not wanting to harm their businesses. The public sector is another matter. It's "free" money and people are rarely held accountable for misusing it.

It may depend on whether their professional indemnity insurance, if they have it, will cover them for management decisions or just medical ones. They may also have individual legal insurance via their house or car insurance.

As doctors they may ask the BMA as their union for support. Assuming the BMA backs them, then the union will pay their costs, if they assess that there is a reasonable chance of success.

If they are not doctors but are in a union, then (presumably Unison) will also cover their costs. Otherwise they may accept liability and try and settle asap.

ETA

And SP should have had the backing of the RCN and not had to find alternative funding.

Unions only get to assess chances of success, not worthiness of the claimant as an individual. This is why SP is suing the RCN.

I also wonder whether those making the decisions for filing these extra claims had regard to the pain it would put the respondents through but had in mind how malicious they'd been and concluded "fuck 'em".

Maybe the new case will pull in information and people higher up the food chain at NHS Fife?

The publicity statement during the trial must have had board level approval as must the various amendments

Tha you to @prh47bridge for informing me that NC coined the phrase. I hope it appears in legal textbooks for generations.

In my opinion @NoBinturongsHereMate was right in writing I think Bananarama is perfect because it emphasises the ludicrous nature of the claim. The Fitzgerald defence sounds like it could be something sensible.
Bananarama is more memorable, although future law students may need to have it explained to them.

Thank you also to @betterBeElwinNextIGuess for directing us to Big Sond’s book. It was interesting to read his brief biography.

Thanks everyone, that all makes sense. I hope it brings her increased compensation and a sense of justice. And I admire the courage of women who decide to go through all this for the sake of other women as well. But I do worry about the toll on her of dragging it all up yet again.