"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

Shades of the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British justice, Aitkens style.

fabulous that Jo Phoenix’s evidence was convincing.

Translation: We are taking time to decide which of our HR/EDI managers to throw under the bus.

That never happens though. They'll probably all get chocolates, flowers and a group hug from the NHS bosses. "You did your best" they'll say. "We shall fight on", they'll say.

Yes, apparently Employment Judge Kemp wasn’t allowed to mention Health & Safety law in his ruling because actual law wasn’t in his remit. Or something.

The Sandy Kemp school of thought

I think trans activists will be going through the judgment bending themselves out of shape hoping to repeat the utter kicking that the Kemp judgment received.

Thanks for this. I have now complained.

It is absolutely not difficult to quote without throwing in gender ideology. It's such obvious bias.

Me too. They shouldn't be using words she didn't say.

TRAs can spin this all they want, but when the next case of a man wanting into women's changing room comes up, the NHS lawyers won't be spinning it.

Except our house is built on the rock that is the supreme Court judgement. Good luck to them.

They need to at least put male or “trans women” or it’s inaccurate as well as shitty smearing.

From the judgment

By requiring the Claimants to share a changing room with a biological male trans woman as pleaded in paragraph 23(a) of the Amended Particulars of Claim, the Respondent engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the Claimants and creating for the Claimants a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment.

Clarity - thank you Sweeney.

Link directly to the pdf

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Bethany-Hutchison-Others-v-County-Durham-and-Darlington-NHS-Foundation-Trust-2501192-24-Others-Reserved-judgment.pdf

hostile, humiliating and degrading

Couldn't be clearer.

I would categorise that as Job Done.

Complaint sent and I have verified my gaming email. to the bbc.

I’m interested in the article 8 HRA finding, as many TRA claims also revolve around it, the GLP cases etc.

Was it Bethany Hutchison?

She came across so well during the hearing. She's articulate, charismatic, attractive and doesn't seem to have any skeletons hidden anywhere. In short, she could become a leading figure for gender critical people.

Putting my tinfoil hat on, I wonder if the BBC sees her a someone who needs to be discredited asap

It was Bethany Hutchison

Meaning that the manipulated words make her sound as a transphobe

We accept paragraphs 29 and 30 of Mr Fetto’s closing submissions and conclude that there was and is no right in law for a transgender person with or without the protected characteristic of gender reassignment to use a single-sex changing room corresponding with their affirmed gender. On the contrary, regulation 24 of the 1992 Regulations requires there to be separate changing rooms for use by biological men and women. In the case of For Women Scotland Ltd, the Supreme Court held that the words ‘sex’, ‘woman’ and ‘man’ in sections 11 and 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010 meant (and were always intended to mean) biological sex, biological woman and biological man. They did not include the sex that a person acquired pursuant to the issue of a gender recognition certificate, or a fortiori, to a transgender person not in possession of such a certificate.

431. The reference to ‘men’ and ‘women’ in the 1992 Regulations must, in our judgement, be interpreted harmoniously and consistent with ‘sex’ and ‘men’ and ‘women’ under the Equality Act. This was not seriously contested by Mr Cheetham, who conceded that this ‘may’ be the case. Parliament cannot, in 1992, prior to legislating for transgender recognition, have intended those words to bear any meaning other than biological sex. Nothing in the Equality Act or in other legislation since 1992 changes that. Therefore, where, as in this case, the Claimants and Rose had to wear special clothing for the purposes of work (a nurses uniform) and where, as we found, the Claimants could not, for reasons of health (infection risk) or propriety (modesty), be expected to change in another room, the Trust was under a statutory obligation to provide suitable and sufficient facilities for them – and for Rose. By virtue of regulation 24, those facilities cannot be suitable unless they are separate for men and women for reasons of propriety (see the case of Footit referred to in the relevant law section above). As we have already stated, propriety, modesty, privacy and dignity are at the heart of these complaints.

Sheila Fogarty will be discussing the case on LBC at 3pm

They could always contact. Fife for advice on a press release. Or maybe not....

I'm so thrilled by this judgement. Watching this and Sandie's case, the Darlington judge seemed to have a much better grip on the issues, judging by his questions and interventions.

431 . The reference to ‘men’ and ‘women’ in the 1992 Regulations must, in our judgement, be interpreted harmoniously and consistent with ‘sex’ and ‘men’ and ‘women’ under the Equality Act. This was not seriously contested by Mr Cheetham, who conceded that this ‘may’ be the case. Parliament cannot, in 1992, prior to legislating for transgender recognition, have intended those words to bear any meaning other than biological sex. Nothing in the Equality Act or in other legislation since 1992 changes that.

While this judgement isn't binding, I am very very pleased that they have articulated this - first time, I think?

That is so clear!

Wading through the judgement now and so far it appears to be clear and well balanced

Right now at the bbc