NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #56

[nauticant]

Judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6936ce28a6fc97b81e57436a/S_Peggie_v_Fife_Health_Board__Dr_Upton.pdf

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 3 September to 1 October 2025
Thread 54: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5418690-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-54 from 28 September 2025
Thread 55: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5447019-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-55

Brilliant news

The other thread is racing towards its end so this thread is here now.

Sorry if this has already been explained, the threads are moving so fast.

The judgement seems to say that NHS Fife was not obliged to do anything about the changing rooms because only one woman objected to the situation. So is the judge therefore saying that if more women objected then Fife would have to provide separate facilities? If so, then how many complaints would it require? I'm very confused by what the judge is trying to say about this.

I've nothing really to add except I feel like I'm going mad. I hope she appeals if she's got enough left in the tank to do so. But it's up to Sandie, so much stress. We've got a long way to go.

I also feel like I'm going mad. I seem to be living in a world I used to know, but now has no remnants of sanity or common sense left.

Wonder if Michael Foran will comment? Hope so.

If Sandie can face an appeal along with the Maria Kelly appeal then we will get more binding precedent at a higher level.

I'm assuming, rightly or wrongly, that the findings as to credibility will not affect the appeal. It doesn't matter who said what or did what, he should not have been there.

He's probably having a nervous breakdown, Reality and nightmare cannot be reconciled

From first reading - and it's hard reading for women, you could not end up feeling more disposable really -

he believes its reasonable for men with (sufficient sincere) transition, (unmentioned what), to use the facilities matching their chosen gender. (his words not mine, law provided).

There is no detriment to women. He rejects that there is any safety issue for women. He believes from evidence that women only can have an issue if they formally (and very nicely) complain through proper channels (which if I remember, didn't actually work.)

IF a woman states a complaint (which she must do through formal channels, or by disclosing her trauma to her employers - wtaf - and without ever being in any way offensive or demonstrating emotion or anything about this) then she has a point. Because biological sex is real, article 8 rights and SCJ (which he wangles a very great deal).

But reasonable adjustments should be made, and his suggestion was moving SP to a different shift. Or finding her another room. Or possibly (in fairness) Upton moving, although other women were fine and happy changing with him. He does not believe women have sex based rights (1992 regs dismissed) to single sex spaces basically, which is an interesting and courageous view.

Comments about misgendering; he does not agree with or find it appropriate. And he really did not like Maya or anything said by Sex Matters which he does not find representative of women.

Ah! I'd glimpsed a post in the previous thread that said 'I'm sure she'll appeal' and had a real fright. But worked my way back and going to have a proper look now. Had forgotten we were expecting movements today so this is a 'nice' surprise although now I haven't got any time to absorb it all!

He ought to look at the polling. Maya is more representative of what most women think than the likes of Kate Searle.

Have to admit I'm not altogether surprised. Big Sond's hostility to Naomi Cunningham was palpable. But to comment like that over the Pete analogy after Jane Russell's thoroughly unprofessional behaviour and the Mystery of the Missing Emails - to me at least, indicates a clear bias. Cunningham wasn't being frivolous. There was a serious point behind what she was doing. And she was unerringly cool, polite and courteous, sometimes in the face of deliberate provocation.

If 'Sond' could have thrown this claim out, I suspect he would have.

A lot of it comes across as finding Jane Russell much more compelling than is warranted.

My final comment before I do all the things I should have been doing since 1pm:

The judge thinks that DrU who is [a] a medical doctor and [b] believes he is a biological woman is a 'credible and reliable witness'.

So he's saved two careers, hers and DU's

The judge did speak to some disappointment with the late submissions from Fife etc, but only in inconsequential terms, as far as I could see. If there was any further comment or detail about that, I didn't find it yet.

36. … Much relevant evidence that clearly fell within the order was not produced until very late indeed.

37. What the Tribunal regards as a wholly improper and large-scale lack of full and appropriate compliance with the order for documents, which the Tribunal addressed in the Note following the hearing on 17 March 2025 but which despite its terms appears not to have been timeously and effectively acted upon by the first respondent thereafter, was a factor that we took into account as set out below. For a public body such as the first respondent not to comply with the order

38. ... More significantly it also meant that a substantial volume of documentation was latterly available which had not been raised with the witnesses who had given evidence during the initial days of hearing in February 2025, but who might well have been asked about them had they been available, in particular the second respondent and Ms Davidson.

I know, right?

Enid Blyton couldn't have written Topsy Turvy Land with this much precision.

I only have a moment to try to glean what I can from the BBC, but this seems like a terrible outcome? Am I right?

Very mild and short bit near the end which could be summarized as Fife were a bit incompetent but whatever.

We have to remember that we're all biased in our own way - toward material reality. But others, including Big Sond apparently, are equally fervent in their non-reality-based beliefs.

Until (or rather if) an appeal succeeds, my big concern as I said on the previous thread, is that this and the Kelly judgement will be a call to arms for captured institutions to really really really crack down on any hint of incorrect thought (let alone behaviour) amongst the support bipeds.

Well it's a very interesting one certainly, and I'll look forward to the appeal on multiple points.

From the previous thread, thought it worth discussion - just a typo or genuine confusion?
ProfessorBettyBooper · Today 13:21

They're already confused in their definitions....
'The claimant does not dispute that the second respondent is a person to
whom the provisions as to gender reassignment apply, such that the
second respondent has the protected characteristic of gender
reassignment. The Tribunal will use the terms “trans woman” being a
person assigned male by sex at birth who has the protected characteristic
of gender reassignment in the context of transition to female, and “trans
man” being a person assigned as male by sex at birth who has the
protected characteristic of gender reassignment in the context of transition
to male, or the generic “trans person”, although those terms do not appear
in the Act. It broadly follows the terminology used by the Supreme Court
in FWS.'

From the previous thread:
spannasaurus · Today 14:33

How would one get a legal judgment on what the definition of men and women is in the 1992 regulations. It can't be via an employment tribunal so what kind of case could it be?

This is what I was wondering.
As in this case and in Kelly v Leonardo the judges seem to think that women's toilets and changing rooms at work don't have to be single sex, and it's fine to allow in men with long hair and make-up (they're soo feminine, and their sex may even be 'unknowable').

Thanks for the summary . Sounds like a fairly fair and balanced judgement.