"Darlington Nurses" vs County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust Tribunal Thread 8

[ThreeWordHarpy]

Thread 1, 7-Oct to 23-Oct; pre-hearing discussion, KD (day 1 of evidence) and BH (day 2).
Thread 2, 23-Oct to 28-Oct; BH (day 2), CH, JP, MG (day 3&4), TH, SS, ST, LL (day 4), JS, AT (day 5)
Thread 3, 28-Oct to 29-Oct; AT (day 5&6), TA (day 6&7)
Thread 4, 29-Oct to 31-Oct; TA, AM (day 7) JB (day 8)
Thread 5, 31-Oct to 04-Nov; JB (day 8), SW, CG, JR (day 9)
Thread 6, 04-Nov to 05-Nov; RH (day 10), SW (day 11)
Thread 7, 05-Nov to 11-Nov; SW (day 11), closing submissions

Five nurses working at Darlington Memorial Hospital have filed a legal case suing their employer, an NHS trust, for sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The nurses object to sharing the women’s changing facilities with a male colleague, Rose, who identifies as female. The hearing started on October 20th, with evidence now complete. Submissions are being made on November 11th. To view the hearing online requests for access had to be made by October 17th. The hearing is being live tweeted by Tribunal Tweets who have background to this case on their substack. An alternative to X is to use Nitter: nitter.net/tribunaltweets or nitter.poast.org/tribunaltweets

The Judge made clear at the start of the public hearing on Day 1 that only TT or press have permission to tweet. If online observers see/hear something in the court that isn’t reported by TT, we don’t mention it until the next time there’s a break. This is a very cautious approach to avoid any accusations of “live reporting” on MN. Commentary on the content of TT tweets is fine as soon as they’re posted on X.

Key people:
C/Ns - Claimants, the Darlington nurses
R/T/Trust - Respondent, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust
J/EJ – Judge/Employment Judge Seamus Sweeney
NF - Niazi Fetto KC, barrister for claimants
SC - Simon Cheetham, KC, barrister for respondents
RH - Rose Henderson, trans identifying nurse
CG – Clare Gregory, NHS ward manager
SW - Sue Williams, NHS Trust HR
KD – Karen Danson, first claimant to give evidence.
BH – Bethany Hutchison, claimant
AH – Alistair Hutchison, husband of Bethany
CH – Carly Hoy, claimant
JP – Jane Peveller, claimant
MG – Mary Anne (aka Annice) Grundy, claimant
TH – Tracy Hooper, claimant
SS – Siobhan Sinclair, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust
ST – Sharron Trevarrow, witness for the claimants, retired from Trust, former housekeeper and wellbeing officer
LL – Lisa Lockey, claimant
JP – Professor Jo Phoenix, expert witness
JS – Jane Shields, witness for the claimants
AT - Andrew Thacker, NHS trust Head of HR
TA – Tracy Atkinson, NHS trust HR.
AM – Andrew Moore, NHS Head of Workforce Experience
JB – Jillian Bailey, NHS Workforce Experience Manager
AT – Anna Telfer, NHS Deputy Director of Nursing
SW – Sandra Watson, Matron for General and Elective Surgery
JR – Jodie Robinson, manager of Rose

Karen Danson, claimant, gave evidence on Wednesday 22 October 2025.
Bethany Hutchison, claimant, gave evidence on Thursday 23 October 2025.
Mr Hutchison appeared on Thursday 23 October 2025 only to confirm his witness statement.
Carly Hoy, claimant, gave evidence on Friday 24 October 2025, morning session.
Jane Peveller, claimant, gave evidence on Friday 24 October 2025, morning session.
Mary Annice Grundy, claimant, gave evidence on Friday 24 October 2025, afternoon session and then gave very brief evidence to include a correction on Monday 27 October 2025, morning session.
Tracy Hooper, claimant, gave evidence on Monday 27 October 2025, morning session.
Siobhan Sinclair gave evidence remotely on Monday 27 October 2025, morning session.
Sharron Trevarrow gave evidence remotely on Monday 27 October 2025, morning session.
Lisa Lockey, claimant, gave evidence on Monday 27 October 2025, morning session.
Jane Shields gave evidence on Tuesday 28 October 2025, morning session.
Kirsten Coutts gave evidence on Tuesday 28 October 2025, morning session.
Andrew Thacker gave evidence from Tuesday 28 October 2025, morning session, to Wednesday 29 October 2025, morning session.
Tracy Atkinson gave evidence from Wednesday 29 October 2025, afternoon session, to Thursday 30 October 2025, morning session.
Andrew Moore gave evidence on Thursday 30 October 2025, afternoon session.
Jillian Bailey gave evidence on Friday 31 October 2025, morning session.
Tracy Wainwright gave evidence on Friday 31 October 2025, afternoon session.
Anna Telfer appeared on Monday 3 November 2025 only to confirm her witness statement.
Sandra Watson gave evidence on Monday 3 November 2025, morning session.
Claire Gregory gave evidence on Monday 3 November 2025, morning session.
Jody Robinson gave evidence on Monday 3 Novement 2025, afternoon session.
Rose Henderson gave evidence on Tuesday 4 Novement 2025, morning session (starting hours late), and afternoon session.
Sue Williams gave evidence on Wednesday 5 November 2025, morning session.
Professor Phoenix gave evidence on Friday 7 November 2025, morning session.

A reminder that "Support the Darlington nurses" signposts a garden with a lot of space. It is filling up slowly but needs more plants and more publicity to find potential gardeners.

As some are put off by the link to Christian Concern a reminder that the funds go to the nurses lawyers - as the legalfundraising page says

"Built for legal
CrowdJustice is specially tailored for legal action. Unlike other crowdfunding platforms, we handle compliance issues and transfer funds raised to your lawyer directly – you don’t have to handle cash, and your backers know exactly where funds are going."

(My bold)

Last tweet on previous thread:

TT
Gave rise to fear modesty dignity not only in research but has been in English law since before WW2. The claimants suffered that fear and apprehension

NF currently doing his summing up bit

TT

It’s no answer to say they didn’t actually undress. The cubicles were for shower use the obvious requirement was to get changed in the room. It was in breach of 1992 workplace regulations

Sneaking in to say, the nurses' garden doesn't just need individual carrots, it needs entire fields of them 😒. There's not even 1 field yet, and they're aiming for 5 fields-worth.
<sneaks back out>
Edit SPAG

.

Yes all organisations using the same policies are breaking the law.

TT

Regulation 24 is my focus. Biological sex must respected.
J if you’re right, every organisation has been in breach of 1992 regs
NF yes

Collective stupidity should never be a defence, but it was basically what the Trust went with.

Perfect summing up
by the Judge

TT

J engagement of article 8?
NF we say it applies. Id trust wants to apply. Respect dignity the way is to respect biological sexes

Gave rise to fear modesty dignity not only in research but has been in English law since before WW2.
Good point by NF, showing that the idea of men having the right to be in women's spaces is a recent deviation from a long established social convention..
Like his 'the ideology was on the other side', a useful point to repeat in other circs.

If the ET finds the Trust are in breach of 1992 Regs this would be huge.

I know ETs don’t make case law but it should make all NHS Trusts sit up and take notice.

I had a grocery delivery booked between 12noon and 4pm.

It arrived just as NC started to speak, and has taken me all this time to file away - it was mostly fridge and freezer stuff.

TT

NF beyond the law at the time it was not discrimination if person had not gender reassignment completed, then facility. Harassment claim at its core the claimants experience and compromise of dignity and offensive environment
J irrespective of any conduct issues?
NF yes

J if you’re right, every organisation has been in breach of 1992 regs
NF yes

<nods vigorously>

I can feel a collective shudder running through HR departments.

The best 'yes' since Molly Bloom's😁

TT

NF if trans identity not there ..but they experience a male Ratifying the policy is enough even before getting to any encounters with Rose is enough and creates an environment

@anyolddinosaur

anyolddinosaur
The legal crowdfunding page says "Built for legal
CrowdJustice is specially tailored for legal action. Unlike other crowdfunding platforms, we handle compliance issues and transfer funds raised to your lawyer directly – you don’t have to handle cash, and your backers know exactly where funds are going."

Seems clear enough to me.

I was referring to this: https://support.crowdjustice.com/en/articles/10435666-do-i-need-to-instruct-a-lawyer-before-starting-my-crowdjustice-campaign

"If you are a registered charity or non-profit, you do not need to have a lawyer instructed, as funds can be sent directly to your organisation."

It makes sense that CC may hold the funding, because the crowdfunder info mentions potential cases that they can't possibly have instructed solicitors to act on, because they relate to matters that haven't yet happened, eg need to defend NMC investigation or to appeal this ET outcome.

CC is already committed to this case, and has already instructed a solicitor to respond to initial NMC info-gathering letter. IMO they are deserving of donations for that. But it would probably be helpful to CC for them to be clearer on the CJ page because they are seeking donations from an audience that is a bit new to them, and they will likely need to establish a higher level of trust than say, with churches that have been onboard with their work for a long time.

TT

J if a policy is ratified but not published how ?
NF Not till 2023 but they encountered Rose.
J whole point of policy is to regulate
NF it affects the culture, how people behave.

TT

NF the claimants had to live with it. para 50. Matter of law the application. I don’t agree that a PC must be the same all the way through. The use of the CR is all about the segregation of sex.

I suspect this is exactly what NHS Trusts are waiting for. It's the moral cowardice issue (That NC raised in Leonardo case). Most organisations will want the matter dealt with but they don't want to face the TRA complaints if they initiate change. They want to be abe to wring their hands and say that the court decisions have made them do it.

This is what blows my mind, that organisations haven't immediately changed their policies to align with the law.

They are all wide open to being sued, and it is guaranteed that they would lose, especially those that have stated they are waiting for further guidance, as that would mean that they are aware of the law.

Good point by NF, making the segregation of the sexes as a baseline, other PCs having to be balanced with it rather than vice versa.