Page 38 | NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #53

nauticant · 2025-09-03T21:53:07+00:00

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 EmploymentTribunalEnquiriesScotland@justice.gov.uk. The hearing was live tweeted by [[https://x.com/tribunaltweets x.com/tribunaltweets]] and there's additional information here: [[https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005]] and [[https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6 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: [[https://www.archive.ph/WSSjg archive.ph/WSSjg]]. An alternative to Twitter is to use Nitter: [[https://nitter.net/tribunaltweets nitter.net/tribunaltweets]] or [[https://www.nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets]] Links to previous threads #1 to #50 can be found in this thread: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards 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 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: [[https://www.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 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

RedToothBrush · 30/09/2025 12:24

Largesso · 30/09/2025 11:17

I can see your point but look at it from a slightly different perspective tho have no expert knowledge.

Kemp knows this tribunal
is of vital importance and appeals will be sought on any judgment.

Appeals can only really be made on legal points (or if the judgement was so ridiculous) so Kemp is ensuring that a legal position for an appeal by Russell can’t be made on this basis.

He is covering all points to remove arguments for an appeal on the basis of decisions made about the law as applied to the Respondents case. That’s a good thing.

Naomi in her submission asked the panel to consider this argument even if not allowed and by doing so she sets out the importance of this panel tackling this.

It has wasted time which is why he rebuked Russell but Peggie case is about, in my view, ensuring that other women don’t have to go through this process either in work or through a tribunal so Cunningham’s team need all points argued. The panels document sets out a rationale that means witnesses don't have to be recalled. Also, a good thing.

it says nothing of import about what the judgment will be other that the panel have tolerated Russell’s bullshit during the trial to be scrupulously fair to the defendants during the hearings but they don’t have to tolerate it beyond that. I think that means they will consider the evidence fairly in their judgment. and if you are following the detail…there can only be one reasonable outcome if that is done.

Show quote history

It has wasted time which is why he rebuked Russell but Peggie case is about, in my view, ensuring that other women don’t have to go through this process either in work or through a tribunal so Cunningham’s team need all points argued. The panels document sets out a rationale that means witnesses don't have to be recalled. Also, a good thing.

The Glinner Batsignal went up about how women are being treated like shit by the legal system didn't it? I would say there's probably a degree of sensitivity about it now and a greater feeling that the system isn't being used maliciously.

CriticalCondition · 30/09/2025 12:57

In any other case Big Sond's comment on the Respondent lawyers' negligence might see the Claimant applying for costs regarding the time wasted on the matter. But in this case, who knows.

NoBinturongsHereMate · 30/09/2025 13:16

ArabellaSaurus · 30/09/2025 11:20

'Failing to make eye contact when I said hello' is not a legal matter.

It isn't.

But suspending someone for 3 months because of an uncorroborated and uninvestigated claim that they did this is a legal matter. And that's what's before the tribunal.

thewaythatyoudoit · 30/09/2025 13:51

I think BSond made an important point in the judgment, and it was in the context of NC complaining that JRs application would lead to the witnesses having to come back. He DID say if NC failed to XX adequately on unreasonable manifestation that was her fault (He has to say that or they would have to return so that she can do it now). But he also reminds us that the burden of proving the means of expression to be excessive would be on Fife. it looks as though he’s hinting that they didn’t have enough evidence to do it. If so, the XX isn’t important. There is a thrilling evidence point here but about the two different types of burden of proof, but I’ll spare you that unless you want to know!
I’m hoping when he gives judgment on Bananarama he will explain what WOULD be an excessive reaction from a woman finding a man in her changing room. I’m sure Graham Linehan would love to know

OhBuggerandArse · 30/09/2025 13:52

There is a thrilling evidence point here but about the two different types of burden of proof, but I’ll spare you that unless you want to know!

I definitely want to know!

NoBinturongsHereMate · 30/09/2025 14:05

I also want to know, please.

thewaythatyoudoit · 30/09/2025 14:22

Well, OhBuggerandArse…
if you have the legal burden of proof on an issue, (ie, you must convince the tribunal, here, on the balance of probability) you also have an underlying burden, called the evidential burden. You need sufficient evidence to raise the issue, otherwise the tribunal won’t deal with it at all. So it doesn’t matter what you’ve got written on pleadings or statements of issues, it is a dead duck. This is why judges can halt criminal trials before the defence begins; the prosecution case has a big hole in it.
So if Fife have the legal burden on unreasonable manifestation, they must introduce sufficient evidence to get B Sond to deal with it. Did they say at any point which of her remarks on which occasion are it? Or why they are unreasonable? I’d cross it off the list of issues on the big hole basis, but even if he disagrees I can’t see him saying any or all of her reactions were on the balance of probability unreasonable in the circs, in which case they can’t meet the legal burden.
As to who has the burden of proof, the norm is it’s on the party making a positive claim, here Fife, otherwise someone has to prove a nebulous negative (Inever said anything nasty to him, ever…)
Hope all that makes sense!

OhBuggerandArse · 30/09/2025 14:31

thank you, @thewaythatyoudoit - that does make more sense now.

MyrtleLion · 30/09/2025 14:31

thewaythatyoudoit · 30/09/2025 14:22

Well, OhBuggerandArse…
if you have the legal burden of proof on an issue, (ie, you must convince the tribunal, here, on the balance of probability) you also have an underlying burden, called the evidential burden. You need sufficient evidence to raise the issue, otherwise the tribunal won’t deal with it at all. So it doesn’t matter what you’ve got written on pleadings or statements of issues, it is a dead duck. This is why judges can halt criminal trials before the defence begins; the prosecution case has a big hole in it.
So if Fife have the legal burden on unreasonable manifestation, they must introduce sufficient evidence to get B Sond to deal with it. Did they say at any point which of her remarks on which occasion are it? Or why they are unreasonable? I’d cross it off the list of issues on the big hole basis, but even if he disagrees I can’t see him saying any or all of her reactions were on the balance of probability unreasonable in the circs, in which case they can’t meet the legal burden.
As to who has the burden of proof, the norm is it’s on the party making a positive claim, here Fife, otherwise someone has to prove a nebulous negative (Inever said anything nasty to him, ever…)
Hope all that makes sense!

That was fablamous, amazling, and brillament.

NotInMyyName · 30/09/2025 14:40

Justabaker · 30/09/2025 08:41

If anybody needs a legal 'fix' whilst waiting for the Peggie judgment; one of my all time favourites in from Jo Phoenix's tribunal. It was so scathing that several of the paragraphs are on the TT substack page here.

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/professor-jo-phoenix-v-the-open-university

@Justabakerthank you for this link. Its been so good to have access to the judgement or decision in full. I will read again in more depth but really struck about so many similarities to SP case and its so good to see the ar$e covering, bullying and ideology maidens being called out in writing.

There are comments about witnesses not being believable, untrustworthy, and piling-on to bully (or a phrase like piling on). Not all the claims were upheld but the judgement is very clear and logical and fair to both parties. Jo Phoenix won her claim and everyone knows how badly she was treated. It should not have happened at all.

I’m encouraged that SP will also get justice. But nothing can compensate her for loss of privacy and stress.

KTheGrey · 30/09/2025 15:23

Merrymouse · 30/09/2025 08:03

I wonder whether the judge's suggestion that JR's team were negligent will lead to a reduction in their fees?

Wouldn’t it be fabulous if NHSFife sued JR? It would be radioactive ☢️

Peregrina · 30/09/2025 15:30

Is this discussion about evidential burdens why NHS Fife made a song and dance about Upton supposedly being compared to a rapist?

Although from what I remember, this was a Kate Searle embellishment.

prh47bridge · 30/09/2025 15:32

That was part of what they regarded as unacceptable behaviour by SP. Upton appears to have taken SP's remark as comparing him to Bryson, but I think he admitted that she didn't actually say so.

ChangingWeight · 30/09/2025 15:32

KTheGrey · 30/09/2025 15:23

Wouldn’t it be fabulous if NHSFife sued JR? It would be radioactive ☢️

Show quote history

This won’t happen. She tends to represent government departments and the NHS fairly frequently at tribunals so I assume she has a relatively good reputation/network of contacts. Whilst this case has been a public nightmare she hasn’t done anything warranting a public fall out between her and the NHS, that would just lead to more bad publicity for Fife overall.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 30/09/2025 15:52

prh47bridge · 30/09/2025 15:32

That was part of what they regarded as unacceptable behaviour by SP. Upton appears to have taken SP's remark as comparing him to Bryson, but I think he admitted that she didn't actually say so.

Yup. In retrospect, it seems he knew damn well what he had unleashed on all of them, and was already starting to soften on the position that KS would go on to defend.

From Tribunal Tweets:

DU - she said it wasn't safe for me to be there, asked what my chromosomes were, said it was analagous to the recent case, I assumed Isla Bryson...
JR - hang on please explain exactly the prisons comment
DU - she said it's like the situation in the prisons.
JR -what did you think
DU - I assumed she meant Isla Bryson, that she was comparing me to a sexual predator, there was an argument over men and women's estates
JR - she said you were a man, asked about chromosomes and prisons, how did you feel?
DU - awful, really really upset. I've never been spoken
DU - to like that. It was awful to be compared to someone like that. Someone casting aspersions on my people. I was upset and afraid actually I didn't know what it would mean going forward, would have to raise it but just wanted to extricate myself.

WarrenTofficier · 30/09/2025 16:07

I was upset and afraid actually

Did anyone ask him why he was afraid? I can understand upset but what the hell was he 'afraid' of? Are tallish men in their 20's generally scared by smallish women twice their age?

KTheGrey · 30/09/2025 16:13

BIWI · 30/09/2025 10:04

Like @Peregrina I’m very glad I didn’t make the decision to go into law - I did seriously consider it at one stage. I would so not have been cut out for the level of precision and paying-attention that would be required!

Same.

ThatCyanCat · 30/09/2025 16:16

ChangingWeight · 30/09/2025 15:32

This won’t happen. She tends to represent government departments and the NHS fairly frequently at tribunals so I assume she has a relatively good reputation/network of contacts. Whilst this case has been a public nightmare she hasn’t done anything warranting a public fall out between her and the NHS, that would just lead to more bad publicity for Fife overall.

Show quote history

I agree with you that it won't happen, but creating bad publicity for itself hasn't stopped Fife doing anything yet!

KTheGrey · 30/09/2025 16:26

ChangingWeight · 30/09/2025 15:32

This won’t happen. She tends to represent government departments and the NHS fairly frequently at tribunals so I assume she has a relatively good reputation/network of contacts. Whilst this case has been a public nightmare she hasn’t done anything warranting a public fall out between her and the NHS, that would just lead to more bad publicity for Fife overall.

Show quote history

Sad times 😔

NoBinturongsHereMate · 30/09/2025 16:27

thewaythatyoudoit · 30/09/2025 14:22

Well, OhBuggerandArse…
if you have the legal burden of proof on an issue, (ie, you must convince the tribunal, here, on the balance of probability) you also have an underlying burden, called the evidential burden. You need sufficient evidence to raise the issue, otherwise the tribunal won’t deal with it at all. So it doesn’t matter what you’ve got written on pleadings or statements of issues, it is a dead duck. This is why judges can halt criminal trials before the defence begins; the prosecution case has a big hole in it.
So if Fife have the legal burden on unreasonable manifestation, they must introduce sufficient evidence to get B Sond to deal with it. Did they say at any point which of her remarks on which occasion are it? Or why they are unreasonable? I’d cross it off the list of issues on the big hole basis, but even if he disagrees I can’t see him saying any or all of her reactions were on the balance of probability unreasonable in the circs, in which case they can’t meet the legal burden.
As to who has the burden of proof, the norm is it’s on the party making a positive claim, here Fife, otherwise someone has to prove a nebulous negative (Inever said anything nasty to him, ever…)
Hope all that makes sense!

Ah, so he's said, 'Sure, whatevs, say that if you want.' knowing that when they do he can ignore it.

NebulousSupportPostcard · 30/09/2025 16:29

@WarrenTofficier NC asked in XX and Upton said it wasn't about size; his granny is small and can be really scary!

Reading TT again, in the light of all that has happened, and it's so good. JR should be invited to join the Fife Foot-In-Mouth Whatsapp group for the Fife+Three tribunal, if it gets to court. She emphasises so much information that later becomes helpful to the claimant.

JR Y're only complainer re CR.
SP Only person who complained to manager
JR Charlene, Garry and Clare had also said had a problem?
SP Yes
JR Clare is AE consultant
SP Yes
JR They're not giving evidence nor anything in bundle by them?
SP No

WarrenTofficier · 30/09/2025 16:33

NebulousSupportPostcard · 30/09/2025 16:29

@WarrenTofficier NC asked in XX and Upton said it wasn't about size; his granny is small and can be really scary!

Reading TT again, in the light of all that has happened, and it's so good. JR should be invited to join the Fife Foot-In-Mouth Whatsapp group for the Fife+Three tribunal, if it gets to court. She emphasises so much information that later becomes helpful to the claimant.

JR Y're only complainer re CR.
SP Only person who complained to manager
JR Charlene, Garry and Clare had also said had a problem?
SP Yes
JR Clare is AE consultant
SP Yes
JR They're not giving evidence nor anything in bundle by them?
SP No

Thanks I was sure NC would have picked that up - nothing gets past that woman.

Justabaker · 30/09/2025 16:33

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Peregrina · 30/09/2025 16:41

Yup. In retrospect, it seems he knew damn well what he had unleashed on all of them, and was already starting to soften on the position that KS would go on to defend.

With this I assumed that he didn't have the slightest concern about any other staff involved. My thoughts were that at this stage he realised that might be up before a fitness to practice hearing and then his career could go down the pan.

It might have done anyway - who wants to employ what one of my bosses referred to as a "high maintenance" employee? The only time you might would be when that person had a particular and highly sought after skill. But that was not Dr Upton.

BIWI · 30/09/2025 17:30

What did @Justabaker say to get deleted?!