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

It seems that the fact that only one person complained is significant.
Could that point be appealed separately to any other points?
From the wording in the judgement it seems that more complaints would have generated a different approach from the tribunal. Is the law only interested in the people and situation that is in front of it at the time? Or does it take into consideration the potential for other people to be involved at a later date?
Can that be argued?

Breaches of the 1992 regulations are a criminal act and I believe it's normally the health and safety executive who instigate legal proceedings for breaches. Do we need an individual to try to bring a private criminal prosecution case against their employer to be able to confirm that references to women and men in the act are on the basis of biological sex.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Peggie-v-Fife-Health-Board-and-another-Press-Summary.pdf

Press summary says -
(1) It's not automatically lawful or unlawful for a TW to use female changing room. So, is Big Sond just sitting on the fence?
(2) Test is "objective justification"
(3) one of the factors to be taken into account is complaints from other staff
(4) initially lawful for NHS to permit it
(5) once Sandie complained, Dr Upton should have been told not to use the changing room temporarily while NHS looked for a solution, in this case, change of rota and no one else complaining

So, I guess that means that we all need to complain every time, so employers / service providers can't say that it's OK cos no one objected

And perhaps we should make pre-emptive statements, rather than wait until a TW barges in on us? That way, employers can't claim that they thought all the staff would be OK with it

In the media, both sides seem to be claiming victory, but this doesn't feel like a victory for Sandie, unfortunately

I believe it mentions he read some evidence but didn't find it reliable or credible or something.

He went with the 'most women are fine' (and you only know if one isn't if they kick off), and there's no group detriment to women.

It's odd to put it mildly.

A ET judge deciding that the Supreme Court ruling isn’t relevant to all aspects of our lives is
really digging about for tiny loopholes

Im shocked that this judge has now declared sex as biological is only a fact if a situation is specifically mentioned in the SC ruling

For Designers, managers and users of buildings this sets us back.
This is truly shocking and I would expect there is plenty to play with for an appeal on this case
and
Revisiting the SC ruling to clarify for all the idiots at the back that sex as biology means for everything and not just for the scenarios men chose

This isn’t a pic n mix for women’s safety

Here's hoping!

I think the he said she said parts are done and done, we won't see any roll back or better outcome there.

I'm heartened that SP got her result against Fife, even if the only management scalp was a soon-to-retire CEO who anyway negotiated a nice deal to act as the scapegoat.

And specific mention that if a woman does formally complain, then immediate action should be to stop the expectation of mixed sex sharing, and action should be taken by three weeks to sort alternative provisions (mixed sex and single sex alongside) based on the number of women who have.... formally complained and invoked their article 8 rights. Three weeks being judged reasonable.

Sorry: corrected, was not completely accurate. Immediate action to stop mixed sex provision, longer term solutions found. Basically if a woman says no, suddenly the SCJ matters.

Wondered if it's worth saying judges in the UK have been trained by trans groups such as Stonewall for years -who state men who say they are women can use female spaces.
And back in 2028 (when trans groups still acknowledged this is a lie) they campaigned to end single sex spaces. So what they did when the government rejected their campaign was just train everyone that it's true, and to hell with the women who self exclude or whose privacy and safety is ended .

https://womansplaceuk.org/2018/06/25/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/

Surely with the SC clarification under the 1992 regs, a woman is an adult human female and a man is an adult human male, defined by their biological sex. About time for the HSE and HS professionals to step up?

Like others, despite skim reading and following, I can’t quite believe some of the stuff I’m reading.

I feel that the judge is applying a version of sharia law (also I believe Old Testament Law) in which a woman's evidence is only worth half of a man's, and you need at least two women to prove a detriment to them of a man's behaviour. Is there such a clause in English law? Also applied in the Kelly case. Because if there is, it should be made public.

@Treaclewell Yes, otherwise known as a man who has no idea or care what life is like for ordinary women without his power and wealth. Misogyny.

The judgment seems to wholly misunderstand the section of the SCJ about the limited times when it may be appropriate that a transman may for example not be able to use women's toilets. It's made very clear in the judgment: this is in situations such as a women's rape crisis service where there may be women unable to access if a woman presents on sight as very male, NOT in most cirumstances, and in this circumstances ALTERNATIVE PROVISION MUST BE MADE FOR THE TRANSMAN.

It's there. Clear. Very readable. The SCJ says: it should never be the case that a trans person is left without facilities to use. (And rightly so!)

The problem is that the SC judgment was only about the Equality Act although they did confirm that the 1975 sex discrimination act was also on the basis of biological sex.

Now it seems perverse that the 1992 regulations weren't also on the basis of biological sex but the argument being used is that the terms weren't defined in 1992 regulations so may not mean bio sex

I think that's quite encouraging / positive

1992 regs completely dismissed, partially (would need this clarified by someone with fuller understanding) not in the judge's remit and needs to be done through other channels. Found not to apply or to provide women with protections or sex based rights.

This has seriously clarified the very significant shift and damage to women's rights.

Akua Reindorf KC from a few months ago:
s

1 47 20 to 1 49 00

Interesting headline from (usually pro-trans) Guardian

"Scottish nurse secures partial victory in trans doctor changing room case"

www.theguardian.com/society/2025/dec/08/scottish-nurse-secures-partial-victory-in-trans-doctor-changing-room-case

This judgement and the Marie Kelly one have made me realise how much of an uphill battle we still have ahead.

I agree.

We are at least done with women needing single sex spaces being ignored, or left without provision. That's huge.

There is the side effect of to gain your article 8 rights however you have to risk speaking up and asking for them. You cannot have access to them, you must 'out' yourself. The judge insists there is no detriment to this, but there is another whacking appeal point. You should not have to explain either your trauma or your politics to your employer to be allowed accessible facilities, that's very obvious.

(Actually that's very old ground, the YH Association had a bash at that years ago before they realised all the issues.)

Can anyone say what implications this judgement will have for the other legal action SP is planning to take?

Is there any thought that he has given a woolly and slightly ill thought out ruling to make sure it’s appealed to the higher court for a legal precedence to be set???

Fucking sexist men.

Women are tits and skirts.

Transwomen have tits and skirts.

Looks like I think a woman should look so must be a woman.

What's the problem?

I get what you’re saying, but in 1992, I don’t remember anyone needing to define man and woman. It was just plain old common understanding and meant one thing.

Yes, it seems employers (eg Leonardo) pass the buck to the ET, and ETs pass it on to the ETA. Have they the bottle? - though I don't know what they're all so afraid of. A lot of dosh for m'learned friends, as long as it's obtainable from somewhere. Outrageous

I'm supposed to be doing something else but I still can't stop thinking about this judgement.

How can the judge not see the correlation between NHS Fife harassing Sandie and other women choosing not to complain.

Fife very clearly , if not in words but by actions, shouted from the rooftop "men WILL enter women's spaces and we WILL punish any woman who dares to not go along with our diktat".

But Sandie was the only one to complain so tough shit women suck it up.