NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #57

[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 28 September 2025 to 21 November 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 19 November 2025 to 8 December 2025
Thread 56: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5456749-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-56 8 December 2025 to 9 December 2025

Re the crowing on Reddit, if I were transgender I don’t think I’d be celebrating too much right now. This tribunal has had huge amounts of publicity, if it goes to appeal even more so, especially if it turns out AI was used.

There’s a big percentage of people, probably mostly men, who up to now haven’t paid too much attention to Trans v GC, because it doesn’t appear to impact their own lives in any way.
Some of those people will be business owners and managers, with the power to hire staff.

The more tribunals that are in the news, the more such people may be reluctant to employ transgender candidates because who will want to take on a new starter knowing the toilet issue is going to arise, that you might end up at a tribunal —and in front of NC—costing your company thousands defending your policies and splashed all over the media?

Rightly or wrongly the thought will be there, is this person going to be a potential troublemaker? Are they going to be easily upset or emotional? Will I need to escort them to their vehicle because they’ve been misgendered and can’t continue their shift?

Every single tribunal or court case is shining a light on the issue. The “victory” that is being crowed about today might ultimately prove pyrrhic.

Another very misleading use of a FWS quote

https://x.com/i/status/1998722924270731506

Did they say they had other trans colleagues or did they say trans women? If not medical staff (and TW) they may not have needed a changing room. If they were senior staff with own office they may have changed there. There was no settled policy before this (I think).

Astounded. At well, all of it. But the sheer waste these people have felt entitled to spaff about. Upton who put his needs before women’s. NHS Fife for not giving two shits about what they do to their staff and how much tax payer money they burn through. The bloody judge, with his endless long hand notes who can’t be bothered to learn shorthand or touch typing. And then feels even more entitled to write a 300+ page judgement, that a 12 year old could produce at more quality and brevity. Never mind the incompetence of the fabricated/AI generated quotes, or the entitlement to contradict the Supreme Court. Just astounded.

Yes, this whole section bothered me. Couldn't tag this morning, so coming back to ask @prh47bridge if she could kindly give a view?

Over paras 806-7, the judgment jumps on the SC use of the word "reasonableness" to suggest that "reasonableness" indicates some test beyond sex. I had thought that here the SC is simply discussing at that point situations in which providing a single sex service is a reasonable means of achieving a legitimate end. Please, please can any of our resident lawyers comment on this?

Didn't the judgment completely dismiss the submission from Translucent as "wrong"?
Or am I misremembering?

The judgement is so bad (not just disappointing, but legally and factually erroneous) that the only reason I can find for it is to invite an appeal which would then establish the law.

(Have I got that right? This case is not binding for other cases, but if won on appeal then it would be binding?)

Yes, the Translucent submission said (explicitly, not just implicitly) that FWS had been wrongly decided, and SK said he didn't have authority to say that. Although, he then kind of did...

850.
Although we were provided by the respondents with materials which included what appeared to us to be criticism of some aspects at least of the Supreme Court decision, and by the claimant with commentary on the 1992 Regulations from an IDS publication, were we consider of no assistance to us. These materials are not authority, and we are bound by the Supreme Court decision given the doctrine of judicial precedent. The argument for TransLucent to the effect that FWS was wrongly decided we also reject as not being a finding we are entitled to make.
851.
We did not accordingly accept these arguments for the respondents, or the submission by TransLucent.

Did they say they had other trans colleagues or did they say trans women?

That I either don't remember or it wasn't established. I think one of the consultants waffled on about being on a sports team with a trans (man?), and having no problem. (Which the transman being a woman wouldn't be.) I think it could have been a useful question to explore further.

A transman taking testosterone certainly at a high level would get done for doping.

What he is ignoring (or does not understand) is the fundamental premise that the Equality Act is a concept that services, and employers must not exclude a protected group without a jolly good reason. “A proportionate means to a legitimate aim”

So the reason one can exclude a certain sex from certain provisions, and for other purposes is set out as we all know.

its just a massive error in law

Gloves are off
https://x.com/michaelpforan/status/1998816078731030611

Oooh. It's like a soap opera!

OK, did he just stop reading half way through paragraphs once he'd found a bit that sounded like what he wanted to hear?

One of the replies: "A judge said that one of the witnesses wasn't qualified as an expert, and then misquoted from the case she's an expert on. You couldn't make this stuff up. Oh, but he did."

Can this judgement be deemed to be so bad that it is voided, (and they have to start again?) Sorry if that's already been asked - it's difficult to keep up.

"not of assistance to us" 😁

1265.The third application under Rule 36 was from TransLucent. In essential terms it argued that the definition of women in the 1992 Regulations required a different interpretation to that from by the Supreme Court in FWS under the 2010 Act, so as to include a trans woman, and argued that that decision had been wrongly decided, but as we discuss above the Tribunal cannot competently decide an issue of the interpretation of that term under those Regulations, and we are bound by the Supreme Court decision in so far as it decided the issue of the definition of woman for the purposes of section 11 of the Act such that we did not accept the submission that FWS had been wrongly decided. Much of the submission had in any event been addressed in the respondents’ submission. Although we considered the submission it was not of assistance to us in determining the issues in this case.

Haha, "Robin Moira White, who works with trans-led advocacy group Translucent, described the ruling as a "careful analysis"." RMW didn't put much careful analysis into his statement, did he?

That would have to be a submission to the EAT that the judgement <details> was so flawed as to render a need for a rehearing of the whole case.
The EAT would have to give directions on said flaws where it agrees and send the case back down.

We're a heartbeat away from Goodly Potter and the red bull fuelled squirrels deciding a press release is what the world needs right now...

This share token doesn't seem to be working anymore (for me at any rate). Is there any kind soul who could post an archive link or another share token?

Sorry to be a parasite.

Sandie Peggie judge has missed the point of Supreme Court ruling

https://www.thetimes.com/article/37f57eea-2ce6-4c89-ba14-986b5f208149?shareToken=e52be4c706f6dff9d537b9ce32a220a3

I think they gave a number - 3, I think - but didn't specify sex or trans- identity. So they could have also been 'non binary' but changing in the changing room of their birth sex quite unremarkably.

Thanks so much, @Cismyfatarse

The pretence of a failure to understand that a mixed sex space is possible alongside single sex is just very, very creepy.

I find it utterly bizarre that all these men are so utterly wedded to the idea that women should be forced to validate male identities via their unconsenting presence.

NHS Fife could just have a mixed sex changing room that anyone who wants to (i.e. consents) is free to use. Upton could then have been asked to use that. But no, Peggie and other nurses have to be tricked, coerced, and bullied into getting undressed in front of biological males and gaslit too.

Why?

Why Judge Kemp can Upton not just use a clearly labelled mixed sex space?

There seems no possible answer that is not extremely unpleasant. Is it because you know most women won't use the mixed sex space so Upton will be essentially just changing with other men or no-one at all?

Women have to be forced against their will it seems. The lack of consent seems to be essential. It's deeply unsettling.

Yes, you can complain, if you want a target on your back. Reminds me of Umbridge in Harry Potter - please do speak the truth and then if you do, I'll make you carve 'I must not tell lies' until the blood flows onto the back of your hand. After seeing what happened to Peggie, you'd be mad to complain!