NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #53

[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].

The hearing was 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: 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
Thread 52: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5403218-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-52 2 September 2025 to 4 September 2025

I’d’ve thought it’s a mixed blessing, having a barrister who is so completely aligned with your viewpoint. You need one who is vaguely aware of how this looks to the normies, who can realistically assess your chances of success and then put together a strategy, which at least mitigates the damage - a solicitor/barrister team who can instruct you on how to instruct them, almost.

When you see a barrister like JR in full flow it is hard not to speculate about what strange instructions they must have received from both respondents.

This is illuminating.

I believe DU has probably been reported to the GMC by interested members of the public. This duty to report himself to the GMC could be an offence in itself if he doesn’t.

If the tribunal finds that his contemporaneous notes were not contemporaneous, then they may say that he has attempted to mislead the court. He hasn’t misled the court if they don’t believe him. While they may not outright say he’s a liar, or dishonest, this would be sufficient IMO for him to self-report.

As previous posters have set out before, honesty is vital in medicine. The example of students being made to repeat a whole year because they said four weeks rather than six weeks of clinical experience overseas, is well known and quoted, so DU would face a much more severe punishment.

Also it is in NHSF’s interests to discipline him with a probable outcome of gross misconduct and dismissal for either failing to report the alleged resus patient incident, or misleading them that such an incident had occurred. If that happens, then NHSF might report him to the GMC themselves.

This very silly man has had the arrogance to lie about Sandie’s conduct, and misled the lied in court, because he assumed he could get away with it. And it’s hardly surprising because he is lying about being a woman for his own, potentially sexual purposes.

He deserves everything that is coming to him.

Do you know... I have always had a certain sympathy for people cocking up at work in a stressful environment. But I hope KS et al are bricking it. They have behaved despicably and dishonestly. Don't know their own sex my arse. Pandering to the most difficult person in the room combined with an absolute certainty as to their own moral purity. How they behaved is just so deplorable that I hope it is giving them sleepless nights writ large.

I sympathise with cock ups too, mistakes made in good faith. They happen, and human beings don't have an infinite capacity to cope with stress. But I don't think this falls into the cock up category, based on what we know so far. Deliberate bad behaviour is something else again, for me anyway.

This is a tribunal based on protected characteristics, so the potential compensation is unlimited. Legal fees are not normally awarded to the victor in employment cases, but may be awarded in exceptional cases. This is an exceptional case IMO.

SP may get the basic award of statutory redundancy which would be £7,129.50 for her age and length of service, but she hasn’t officially lost her job or been unfairly dismissed.

SP will get lost earnings, if there are any. I don’t know the sickness policy in the NHS, but if she is on lower pay or no pay, she will be compensated for that.

If NC says that SP can never work at all as a nurse, then she will receive around £257,012.80 in loss of earnings.

This is calculated on Band 5 nurse pay at 2025 of £37,796. I am assuming she would have the top of the scale due to longevity. This reduces to £15,118.40 because she worked two days a week. It does not include any additional allowance for night shifts or other benefits.

As SP is at least 50, she cannot claim her state pension until she is 67, so her annual salary multiplied by 17 years is £257,012.80.

If she could work in a different location this might be reduced.

For hurt feelings, I would assume top of the highest Vento band which is £60,700.

I would also assume she could claim aggravated damages of up to £7,500 (the usual maximum) because she did raise this with her employer and they did nothing. Potentially they could have not provided any further evidence to the tribunal following the FWS ruling, so that could mean aggravated damages as well.

A total award of the basic award, loss of future earnings, hurt feelings and aggravated damages is £332,342.30.

IMO, her award will be at least that.

But nothing will ever compensate her for what she has been put through by NHSF and DU, let alone the toll of the tribunal.

I've long believed that Looney Tunes should be part of the core curriculum. At least half of what I know about history, literature, philosophy, fine art or classical music comes from trying to understand the jokes in Bugs Bunny cartoons.

I think it really is. I'm not certain that JR is a true believer but I think she probably is. That's probably an advantage in getting TRA cases.

But if I were in a case like this, would I want a barrister totally aligned with my point of view and willing to throw the kitchen sink at it... or would I want a barrister who would tell me what I don't want to hear and say, "mate, your case isn't that strong, if you agree to this settlement offer it's realistically the best you can hope for"?

It's a difficult judgment call. But in a high profile case I'd certainly want someone dispassionate enough to see how it looks to the normies.

I never realised legal papers could be such a joyous read.

Particularly enjoyed this morning from Peggie team's final subs:
Since none of those propositions was of any relevance to any issue before the tribunal for determination, it was not necessary for C to cross-examine VV.

I suspect JRs are nowhere near as well laid out, coherent, or understandable, to a lay person! Or to a judge if we're being honest!

This is calculated on Band 5 nurse pay at 2025 of £37,796. I am assuming she would have the top of the scale due to longevity. This reduces to £15,118.40 because she worked two days a week. It does not include any additional allowance for night shifts or other benefits.

If she has a contract for two nights a week that will be 25 hours. A standard working week is 37 hours so her salary would be 25/37 of full time plus extra for nights. Alternatively she might be on an hourly rate bank contract with NHS Professional of around £27/hour but with no annual leave or sick pay.

Those 'other benefits' include the NHS pension. Whichbis a complicated calculation.

If her annual salary multiplied by 17 years is £257,012.80 (plus unsocial hours allowance) that's a loss of £4,760 annual pension from the 2015 section. The cost of an index linked annuity (plus 33% dependent's annuity) for that amount is impossible to calculate without knowing the interest rates in 17 years time, but is going to be comfortably over £150k.

And that's just the 2015 part of the pension. She'll almost certainly also be in the 1995 section, which will give her a pension of approx 1/3 of her annual salary at the point of retirement. Payable from at least age 60, not 67. Probably in her case from 55. And she could claim that while still working, so it's an addition to the salary, not a substitution. (An annuity to replace that also needs to be index linked and have a 50%, not 33%, survivor factor). Which another £200k+ at least

Because annuities depend on interest rates, those figures could easily be double - no idea how the court would factor that in, but I'd be erring in the side of caution and awarding the higher end of any range calculated.

Thank you.

That makes her salary £25,537.84 (plus more decimal places, which makes potential future earnings £434,143.24.

I was Intersol in who would pay any award, given there are two respondents.

Compensation would usually be paid by the employer, NHSF, but tribunals can make both respondents jointly and severally liable, which means, as I'm sure you know, that DU is equally liable to pay the whole amount.

I also asked ChatGPT about DU's personal liability to pay compensation due to his conduct towards SP and to the tribunal.

[NB an internet search didn't help, and I didn't name SP or NHSF or DU in my prompt. Please understand AI's reputation for accuracy is not great, but I believe this reply to be accurate enough.]

It said,
Here is how an employment tribunal decides whether conduct is bad enough to justify a personal costs order:

Statutory basis: Rule 76 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure allows a tribunal to order costs where a party (or their representative) has acted “vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably” in the bringing or conducting of the proceedings.

Threshold: The behaviour must cross a line of ordinary mistakes or weak arguments. Costs are reserved for conduct the tribunal views as seriously improper, such as:
Falsifying or concealing evidence.
Knowingly giving false testimony.
Making deliberately unfounded allegations (for example, smearing the claimant by accusing them of endangering patient safety without basis).
Pursuing or defending a case with no reasonable prospect of success.

Discretion: Even if unreasonable conduct is proven, the tribunal has discretion whether to award costs and how much. It will consider factors such as the party’s means, proportionality, and whether the conduct significantly increased costs.

Examples:
A manager who destroyed documents relevant to a discrimination case was personally ordered to pay costs.

An individual respondent who gave dishonest evidence was ordered to pay a portion of the claimant’s legal costs.

Interaction with compensation: These costs orders are in addition to the discrimination award. The NHS, as employer, would typically cover the award itself. The doctor could still be personally hit with a costs order because of their misconduct during the proceedings.

In short: if the tribunal finds the doctor falsified evidence and smeared the victim, that crosses into “unreasonable conduct,” and it has the power to make the doctor personally contribute financially, even though the NHS would remain jointly liable for the main compensation award.

Thank you. I am very thankful for others' contributions about NHS pay, as I have no understanding of it. ❤️

Before anyone gets too excited about million pound awards, what is the basis for the suggestion that she can never work again?

There are very many employers, even outside of the NHS, that would take on an experienced nurse.

Just wanted to add my thanks to, in no particular order, @nauticant @anyolddinosaur @justabaker @prh47bridge @boiledbeetle @bezmills and so many others who have educated, elucidated, illuminated and entertained throughout all these threads.
Consider me peaked.
Still can't do bigly letters and can't be arsed to scroll back but am content to munch on my supply of Tunnocks wafers whilst reading.

It is hard to see how she could go back to work at Victoria hospital.

• Resentment from some staff,
• congratulations from others,
• the site of the harass and victimisation
• paparazzi at the hospital on her return
• potentially the questions from patients, “are you the same SP who won that tribunal case/successfully challenged a trans identifying man/hounded that doctor out of a job”,

detracting from her ability to care for patients and may affect the smooth running of the Emergency Department.

Maybe she can work elsewhere, but the local hospitals are in the same trust. Why should she have to move or commute further?

I don’t know SP, but I have seen what harassment and tribunals do to people, even if they won. It is a huge emotional cost that takes years to get over. So she may need significant time off to recover and then she might have to retrain, or take a job in district/GP nursing which is a different field to emergency care.

These are significant harms.

How does this work with NC then?

I still think its more a comment on how batshit your position is, rather than the views of your barrister.

On SP returning to work at VH: It will be up to the trust to manage relationships between its staff. Anyone who makes SP's life difficult will need to be disciplined as appropriate. (I agree they don't have good form on this, obviously, but the tribunal will assume that NHSFife will be able and willing.)

An award for the successful claim of victimization will deal with "site" issues, and paparazzi are a temporary issue (as in fact are all the other things.) Six months after a return to work this whole episode will be historical, rather than current.

It is a huge emotional cost that takes years to get over.

I totally agree, but it's outwith the competence of the Tribunal to account for the trauma of taking a case to the Tribunal. She'll get an appropriate award for the stress of the harassment and victimization (if the Tribunal finds for her, as we expect it to) but unfortunately you don't get anything extra merely for the stress of making your case in court. That, she will have to suck up. Which is why I say she is "taking one for the team", and we have reason to be grateful.

It's possible that SP will want to retrain, work elsewhere, or never work again - but I respectfully submit that it's a complete fantasy to imagine an Employment Tribunal will find that's the inevitable consequence of any misdeeds by the respondents and make any award on that basis.

If Sandy has refused to settle would that affect her claim? And also thank you Sandy for going the distance and exposing the rot from top to bottom.

Alas, your Tunnock's Caramel Wafer supply is no more.

<wipes away crumbs>

Sad times

In a normal civil case, if you reject an offer to settle and the court eventually awards any lesser amount then you are much more likely to have a costs order against you to pay the portion of your (losing) opponents costs they incurred after the offer was made. That can very expensive, and so there is a good reason, deliberately, to think carefully before refusing to settle with a reasonable offer.

In an Employment Tribunal costs are not normally awarded, so I’m not sure what the disadvantage is.

Interviews for training posts are very competitive currently. Generally are national coordinated/organised and hosted virtually with standardised questions. At the shortlisting for interview stages a CV and portfolio are submitted. It is very clear that all jobs and time out of post must be accounted for, no unexplained gaps in the timeline. In my speciality two pairs of interviewers are split across two sections. So even if I as an interviewer recognised him on screen I would still have to ask about the audit he is most proud of or whatever the set question was. Even if in my head I was thinking WTF were you thinking of when keeping notes on your colleagues?! There is a global rating score “overall artistic impression” that forms part of the score.

@MyrtleLion wrote An individual respondent who gave dishonest evidence was ordered to pay a portion of the claimant’s legal costs.

How apposite.

Fingers crossed.

Sad Times.

It can result in the claimant having to pay some of the other side's costs in aggravating damages, even if the claimant wins.

How inappropriate would it be to have a MN sweepstake on the total award to SP, assuming she wins?