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

I've not seen any mention of criminal prosecutions by any of the legal big hitters which might mean that they don't see it as a good option.

There's also an issue with criminal court backlogs so it night be that it would take years to get a court date for this type of prosecution. The news was reporting this morning that there are some criminal cases that aren't due to be heard until 2030

Yes that’s right. But an appeal court can only do that if the judge of first instance made a judgement. The first level tribunal can’t refuse to decide.

It can say these facts aren’t relevant so we decline to rule in a particular issue. Or this question of law isn’t relevant. It can’t say “this is relevant but too difficult for us, weren’t not going to rule either way”.

Sometimes appeal courts will send a case back down for a new hearing, if the first judge messed up and relevant evidence wasn’t heard, like in Forstater when having decided that GC is WORIADS the EAT sent the case back down to the ET for a rehearing.

In Scotland however ‘appeals can be pursued on a point of law to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, and thereafter to the Inner House of the Court of Session and the Supreme Court. Strict time limits apply’.

I think that’s what @alsoFanOfNaomi was saying/asking.

www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/tribunals/employment-tribunal/employment-tribunal-scotland/about-the-employment-tribunals-scotland/

Thank you, that's v helpful.

That’s the North Dorset Green Party saying “Congratulations to Dr Beth Upton. All claims against her failed and the tribunal has upheld her right to use the female locker room and toilets at work as a trans woman.”
Already my daughter’s work place is saying that they don’t need gender neutral toilets any more as the tribunal made it clear that a transwoman could use the female spaces.
It’s certainly starting to cause a lot of confusion which definitely needs cleared up.

m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid09K5UDek4DstwoVhWoWPPQMLGc7Tqivd5NqEK4JirxK2juutC8D2WDkEegxCrGyHkl&id=100064692069251

Often you’ll see first instance courts say things like “in my interpretation of the law I don’t need to decide this issue but I’m going to anyway”. If there’s an appeal and the thing the first court wasn’t relevant actually is held to be relevant, it means the appeal court can give the correct judgement base on that, instead of needing a rehearing which is very inefficient.

Universities are a weird one. They are under the DfE but don’t have the DfE design guidelines of further education and schools .

I would say in many schools, visitors (parents, community groups) are encouraged and they use the school toilets. Where you go on parents’ evenings for example. Schools were encouraged to invite groups in for extra revenue. That’s when I think the 1992 gets a bit blurry as some of these will be adult groups for example, paying a skills provider who pays the school. Only the staff toilets are covered by 1992 otherwise, that’s partly why we have such mad secondary school designs.

The other thing that came before 1992 is, of course, 1974. Which briefly discusses toilets but does say that you have to regard visitors to your premises. The Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 is the primary piece of legislation covering occupational health and safety in Great Britain and what 1992 had as a base. Everyone has to abide by that one.

Presumably any visiting staff using changing rooms in hospitals or visitors using toilets would have to be asked if they minded the single sex being mixed sex?

https://www.hse.gov.uk/simple-health-safety/workplace-facilities/health-safety.htm

The HSE says reasonable adjustment for a man with prostate cancer is to have a bin in the men’s. It says you must have suitable toilets for disabled people. I believe a reasonable adjustment for those with conditions where they could collapse, which includes workers and visitors with epilepsy, heart conditions, diabetes etc, is a door gap at the bottom of the door for safety. This is not ‘just’ about putting a sanitary item in a bin, this is actually about safety. I feel so strongly about this after researching the tragic preventable deaths in public toilets, that would take it back to Article 2: www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-2-right-life

Enclosing all the toilets hasn’t been an issue in workplaces with traditional mens and women’s. If it all goes enclosed, then there’s no safe loos. I have no accounts of people with collapsible conditions managing to pull an alarm beforehand, which of course there isn’t anyway in normal loos. I have no accounts that women and children being assaulted in enclosed toilets managed to pull an alarm beforehand. I expect in the latter case in could have been dangerous to do so.

Woman's Hour covering this now.

What about when a judge says 'I'm not going to rule on this point at all, because this is the wrong venue'? Is that an appealable element, such that a higher court may later tell him 'you must, because it isn't '?

I do wonder what the Judge's opinion is on transmen? He must be aware that there are different risks when it comes to males and females and if in his opinion this risk seems to decrease once a male takes on the identify of female, how does this work when it is the other way round?

Here’s the private prosecution route in England

www.gov.uk/government/publications/private-prosecutions/private-prosecutions

I scanned the judgement and I was surprised that the panel (of 3) preferred the evidence of Upton and the trusts witnesses in virtually every element, except where the evidence was so overwhelming that even they couldn’t ignore it. The lack of supporting witnesses from other female nurses meant that the panel also said Upton could use the changing room when Peggie wasn’t on shift.
The panel said there was no evidence that trans women posed an additional risk in female changing facilities, and this surely cannot be acceptable on the balance of probabilities.
The judgement is surprising in my view , but, coming from the Court in Scotland, perhaps I should not be bring on the appeal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live/bbc_radio_fourfm?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

10.38am

To be quite frank, figure number 4 gives most definite and certain type of cause for concern. The disguise makes the situation particularly incongruent.

Progress that Woman's Hour are covering it in a neutral, informative way, but it stands out to me that it's just that - a neutral report of events, in contrast to a conversation or an invitation to share personal experiences which is how they're handling the maternity topic this morning.

Wouldn't want to give the meanies a chance to be heard, would we? Still, we've come a long way.

Back to talking about bows on festive party wear now. Phew!

Yes, they've completely missed the point. And also the total lack of enquiry or any subsequent safeguarding measures in relation to any other female users of the facility is a clear breach of responsibility and the trusts duty to its female workforce.

Yes, I was thinking Ben Cooper. He's very measured and calm and thorough.
Naomi's strength is not only her grasp of legal implication, but also her grasp of how trans ideology operates....but for some judges I sense this is a confusing distraction.

I sometimes think about different scenarios where a man might be in the ladies.

In the first case, an elderly man with bladder problems who can't get to the gents fast enough, who apologises for his presence, does his business, and gets out as quickly as he can.

In the second case, a man in female clothing taking plenty of time to do his makeup in the mirror.

Neither should be there in principle, but I know which would concern me more.

I have seen cases where someone has died in a public toilet. You are supposed to be able to open a door from the outside with an emergency release. These safety measures are noted in English and Scottish standards. Not only that, it’s supposed to be able to be changed so it can open outwards. It’s because so many people collapse in toilets.

I keep thinking perhaps I should discuss with coroners or prosecutors about this. I believe they can make changes. Sometimes the delay of finding critically ill people has been hours, then even when a business recognises someone has collapsed they have to call out the fire brigade because they can’t open the door.

I don’t because it would be unbearable for parents and friends to be told there were delays because the cubicle wasn’t up to British Standards.

I think the judge was most concerned with being respectful and "kind" to DU. Treating his Self ID as a given fact.

In Scotland appeals from the EAT go to the Inner House of the Court of Session

The judgement explictly states that the tribunal views both trans women and trans men as biologically male, so who knows?!

"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"

This has been a concern for me when it feels like people would want to make it explicitly illegal for a man to be in the ladies. I don't want someone's 90 year old grandad with prostate problems to be in trouble if he asks politely if anyone would mind because the gents is out of order.

I do think it should be considered off limits for any man to choose the ladies' and with no regard for those for whom it is intended.

Yes, that was extremely sloppy. Embarrassingly so for the EJ and the panel members.

Gosh. Heads in a muddle or what?