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

All the updates from Tribunal Tweets (TT)
The Rs in Peggie v NHS Fife & Dr B Upton made an application to amend their pleadings and the list of issues. The application was opposed by the C and arguments made in a public hearing. The ET has concluded on this question. The explanatory note is linked below.

From TT (Images added in these posts come directly from TT)

Link to complete note:
drive.google.com/file/d/1NbVlyM…

So I've skimmed it and I'll be honest I don't understand most of it but at one point the panel seem to be giving JR a hard time for requesting changes very late without any explanation. The word 'negligent' is used

From TT

Also excerpted from the Note.

I like this bit

64. No explanation as to why an application to amend it so late in the day to add reference to the issues which are loosely described as being of causation was given to us. That is surprising, and does not reflect at all well on those acting for the respondents.

They argue in effect that they have not abandoned the causation or separability issues, but the Tribunal has the ability to hold that they did so simply from the terms of the List of
Issues they stated specifically had been agreed.. It seems to us given the terms of the respondents’ pleading and initial or opening skeleton argument that had been ordered and provided, and the other factors we refer to in this decision, that the omission must have been by what we can only describe as negligence.

😂

Edited cos I missed a paragraph.

Yes @ickky that's the bit that struck me! I get confused by the terminology but the respondents are NHS Fife and Upton?

They argue in effect that they have not abandoned the causation or separability issues, but the Tribunal has the ability to hold that they did so simply from the terms of the List of Issues they stated specifically had been agreed.. It seems to us given the terms of the respondents’ pleading and initial or opening skeleton 25 argument that had been ordered and provided, and the other factors we refer to in this decision, that the omission must have been by what we can only describe as negligence.

And this

From TT

Our previous coverage of Peggie vs NHS Fife & Dr B Upton is available on our Substack.
Part 1. tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fi…

Part 2
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fi…

Press coverage
open.substack.com/pub/tribunaltw…

The Rs application to have Tribunal Tweets permission to report revoked and 2 factual corrections can be found here.
tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-nh…

The links are to TT's substack.

I don't think it is a good sign if a judge says something is 'surprising' - I can imagine reading the statement will be a tough thing for JR

But it looks to me in that note as if Fife were granted permission to change the list of issues - that's not great for Sandie Peggie, is it?

Ouch. That must sting even JR’s hide, surely?

I think @prh47bridge might be able to enlighten us.

I may be wrong but how i read it was that the Judge considered that the respondents were already arguing that the investigation and disciplinary hearing was not an act of discrimination on the grounds of a protected belief but, a response to an “objectively objectionable manifestation of said beliefs, and therefore no amendment to pleadings is required.

So the respondent is free to argue the manifestation being unacceptable, and an investigation necessary, which will be considered in the final judgement.

Accepting the listing of this in the list of issues, for the Judgement to deliberate upon.

Foran considered that the Judge might allow the amendment, to avoid an appeal and then uphold Peggie claim in all or in part.

It seems to me that the Judge has done a nifty bit of footwork to avoid an appeal by either party.

So it is neither good nor bad news IMHO

I could be totally wrong.

Yes, I would think that 'surprising' is code for 'batshit'!

Yes, it's a bit ' that's a brave decision, minister' where brave means stupid.

This was my reading on the amendment point.

I imagine JR wants to get on her horse and gallop away after the comments today.

See also 'bold submission' by counsel.

At least they didn't call it courageous!

Bold = cheeky

Michael Foran has tweeted. https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1972682345502134476

Big Sond is a terf.

Sorry I don't understand the difference:

• amendment to the pleadings has been rejected
• amendment to the list of issues has been granted

Can anyone explain?

See my post above

Same. I can't believe 'negligent' is something that will please JR, but it sounds like she got part of what she wanted anyway?

I think (hesitant voice) it means that witnesses can't be recalled. The list of issues on which the case will be decided will include the amendment, but it will be decided on the basis of the evidence already before the panel. I think.