NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #54

[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
Thread 53: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5404208-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-53 from 3 September

Thats my limited experience.
They'd rather work with employers to make sure places are safe, or as safe as possible than to be dealing with the aftermath.

Oh yes, agreed! I just meant that the implication seems to be that the whole costs above the £25K will be borne by CNORIS including both the legal fees and any award for compensation made against both R1 and R2.

There is no surely way the most senior staff (CEO) and Chair wouldn't have known about the repeated iterations over the weekend, even if the initial one was not signed off by them. Unless, to steal from Mr Borthwick, there was a massive internet outage that lasted 3 days and that affected only their phones & devices.

It’s only he said/she said over the CR incident.

It is likely that he lied over the patient safety incident - the health care assistant corroborated Sandie’s version. And it’s also likely that he lied over the “contemporary” nature of his phone notes and the fiasco of providing “evidence” to the IT expert.

He definitely lied when he said he was biologically female but the judge might not want to go there.

These other “lies” will influence how the judge regards his evidence about the CR incident.

@Hoardasurass I hope this will come out as part of disclosure in relation to the other ETs, unless they reach settlement.

Also I think his version of the CR incident that he gave to Dr Searle, was not the same as he gave to Naomi under X.

I love it when the universe notices and hits back. I may never go to heaven, but all the interesting people will be in hell with me.

NC is threatening them with a libel suit. If she brings one, they will have to disclose. That may be her reason for launching one.

Exactly. But has Dr Searle realised that?

Does anyone know how it works in regards to witnesses reading about / discussing the case at this stage? Are they allowed to or do they have to wait until there's a verdict?

It was obvious during the hearings that some witnesses had accepted DU's early version of events at the changing room, not realising that he had then gone on to give the tribunal a different version. Clearly KS didn't know that DU had admitted during questioning that SP hadn't asked him about chromosomes or mentioned Isla Bryson or rapists.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when some witnesses found out that they had been sold a highly dramatised story. That what they defended during questioning hadn't actually happened. DU's alleged lies made many people look like fools during questioning: KS, Elspeth, Isla Bumba, the IT guy...

I wonder what the atmosphere is like at the hospital now.

I didn't get the impression NC (or was it sex matters?) were going to sue for libel / defamation. I thought they just wanted the statement amended, which it was?

@weegielass You are probably right, but I got the impression that they were really furious. If you want to find stuff out, legal action’s the way to do it, so I thought they’d go ahead. If I were the Peggie legal team, I wouldn’t be satisfied with the amendment, given what was said and published in the first iteration about them as legal professionals, I’d take steps make sure no one else tried it. Perhaps they are nicer than me, but I hope not!

Witnesses are supposed to avoid coverage of the case as much as possible until they have finished giving their own evidence. After that I believe they can catch up as much as they like, no need to wait for the whole trial to end.

I think requiring a defamatory statement to be clarified or retracted is a standard part of the 'letter before action' before legal proceedings are actually commenced. I believe that as a matter of public policy this may even be required by legal protocols in order to prompt early settlements.

But publication of a retraction doesn't preclude a claimant from taking further action so SM/Maya/NC can still sue if they want to. If they do, the manner and timeliness of the amendment/withdrawal of the offending words will be taken into account by the judge in mitigation of any damages awarded.

I have worked alongside with the HSE and confirm that they focus on high hazard activities or industries. They also work in tandem with other regulators to conduct joint inspections. My experience is with the environmental regulators. If its brought to the HSE attention that there is an unsafe activity or event, that affects human health or the environmnet, they will bring in the env regulator to investigate jointly. But the environmental regulators will prosecute or take action on the environmental legislation. An example would be an oil spill to land which affects workers respiratory systems.

I suspect the same model applies to the Equality Act and the regulator is the EHRC. Discrimination and danger / risk in SSS does not seem to be an HSE issue. But I’m happy to be corrected.

And yes the HSE will usually work for months or even years to get a business to reduce or eliminate risks. Always with the threat of prosecution. But they always get a business to take their concerns seriously. Primarily because the managers as individuals can be held personally responsible. Which really focusses hearts and minds.

This also circles back to what NHS Fife decided to investigate. It seemed to depend on who was asked at the tribunal.

Ooh, I’m on the freebie list atm. Would very much appreciate if you have any left?

I'd love a referral for MF as well please if there are any left

@KeepTalkingBeth Yes, KS had very surprised emphatic tone when she said "I didn't instruct..."

NC Re DU using F CR, DU said [reads re was approp for him to use this CR. I have been instructed is the approp thing for me to do and I've been told to do this] Y're the only person who discussed this

KS I didnt instruct Dr Upton. I checked she was ok to use the F CR.

KS was later quite tearful under re-examination by JR, and I wondered if it was already dawning on her that she had been royally stitched up by Upton as the words came out of her mouth:

JR - asked about Pete with menacing behaviour. How would you describe DU behaviour

KS - kind and compassionate, never experienced anything but kind and compassion to patients and colleagues.

Ooh, as an aside, and in relation to the Bananarama Defince, it was during KS's re-exam that JR read out some of the outcome of SP's disciplinary:

JR - additional docs bundle 1703 - won't have seen, this is outcome of conduct hearing. Says whilst i find o conclusive evidence, satisfied caused distress, as a RN would expect for you to deescalate and suggest training which should be submitted to RNC for revalidation

I don't think we have heard anything about NC or Sex Matters yet but on 3 Sept, SP's solicitor made press statement:

www.thenational.scot/news/25437909.sandie-peggie-raises-new-legal-action-nhs-fife-staff/

She said further claims of harassment and victimisation will also be lodged in the coming months on her client’s behalf against the health board possibly more of its employees. Ms Gribbon said: “These additional claims relate to the decision to subject Sandie to a disciplinary hearing process and the issuing of a FHB media statement on July 18, 2025.”

I may be wrong, but I thought it was up to the RNC to decide whether or not someone needs revalidation after an investigation, not up to a hospital. As for 'satisfied it has caused distress' that's a bullies charter. All they have to do is sob histrionically as soon as they find a gullible senior staff member and that's the other person stitched up good and proper. Oh wait, that's what happened.

And why, I wonder, did no one say that Dr Upton could have de-escalated the situation by leaving as a doctor would have been expected to and refer him to the GMC for validation?

Grrr

Can you private message me (or one of the others with codes) with your email please Contemporary?

Ofc Goldthumb message me with your email address

Thanks so much, I have PM’d you x

The reflective discussions, that Fife also mentioned in the press release, are a standard feature of the regular cycle of the NMC revalidation for all nurses. They are a part of CPD and not intended as a punishment.

I think it would completely undermine the purpose of the exercise to use it as a punishment, even if Angela Glancey (another registrant nurse) and NHS Fife (an employer of nurses) had the authority to impose NMC sanctions, which they do not.

I am waiting on an answer from the NMC.

"And why, I wonder, did no one say that Dr Upton could have de-escalated the situation by leaving as a doctor would have been expected to and refer him to the GMC for validation?"

Someone on twitter in Feb was astonished that Elspeth Pitt took no action even to check SP was still alive because, after a man presented in that much distress after a confrontation with a woman, there was at least the outside possibility of a dead body being found in the changing room.

To add a little more to the reflective practice discussion, nurses are encouraged to reflect on key incidents and events as part of their ongoing learning and development. We are also required to include 5 pieces of reflective practice in the evidence that we put together every 3 years for re-validation.

The reflection that Fife seem to have required from Sandie as an outcome from the disciplinary, does not need to form part of her revalidation or be submitted to the NMC. In fact if I were her, for my chosen evidence, I might be tempted to reflect on how I have stood up for for female patients and colleagues in the face of overwhelming dissent.

Referral to the NMC for breaches of the code and fitness to practice issues can come before or after an internal disciplinary. Given the internal outcome, there is no reason to have referred her afterwards. If they had referred her before completing the internal process, then it would be usual not to submit any further evidence. But this is Fife …