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

Yes, the judge fudged the comparators, didnt he?

NC was also threatened, although JR in a disgraceful attempt to gain sympathy and smear the GC side deliberately obfuscated the threat and lead observers to falsely believe the Rs' legal team had also been threatened.

Yep. Wayne Couzens was in the blasted police force. Could his co-workers have been satisfied he was safe? So, ET Judge’s opinion would lend to one thinking that because Couzens was vetted, and someone’s colleague, he was therefore a safe man. Should women simply assume that men who are employed (someone’s colleague even) and are vetted are therefore safe? Such safe and ‘vetted’ men could never, ever, be rapists, abusers and murderers as they are employed or have ever been a co-worker of someone.

I don’t think I’ll be trusting EJ Kemp’s reasoning on that.

Wowzers. Waiting for archive to upload.
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/5391599/sandie-peggie-nhs-fife-bogus-quote-judgment/

Justice Kemp must have gone to the same training school as the NHS Fife comms team. Will we get a whole stream of further amendments dripped out over the next few days?!

I think the argument could be that those men are being given a CR that aligns with their gender identity and DU isn't.

lol…..

tell us what it says in the meantime?

(my bold)

The judgment in the Sandie Peggie NHS Fife trans row employment tribunal is set to be amended following claims it includes a bogus quote.
The 300-page document references a line supposedly from a major gender campaigner’s separate tribunal from 2021.
It relates to the case brought by gender campaigner Maya Forstater – a supporter of Ms Peggie – against the Centre for Global Development Europe.
But Ms Forstater told The Courier: “I know that judgment inside out, and I thought [after reading the NHS Fife judgment], those words are not there.”
On Thursday morning, a Judicial Office spokesperson confirmed to us an amended version of the judgment is to be released shortly.
Page 183 of the NHS Fife trans row tribunal ruling discusses the 2010 Equality Act – which Ms Peggie unsuccessfully claimed her employer had breached.
In their analysis of the Glenrothes nurse’s argument, judge Sandy Kemp and the panel wrote: “Secondly, there are different protected characteristics under the act but there is nothing stated specifically within the act itself, or the court’s decision, that one protected characteristic takes precedence over any other.
“In Forstater v CDG Europe and others UKEAT/0105/20 the Employment Appeal Tribunal had emphasised that: ‘It is important to bear in mind that the [Equality Act 2010] does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics’.”
Ms Forstater – the chief executive of Sex Matters, the gender-critical charity backing Ms Peggie – added: “It’s just not clear where it came from at all.
“I couldn’t find that quote anywhere.”
We have also asked the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service for comment.

Lol, I don't think fixing just that is going to cut it, somehow!

Gosh. Does that happen often, does anyone legal here know?

It must throw doubt on the whole thing, officially.

Basically just says it will be amended. Doesn’t get to the bottom of why that happened in the first place and presumably won’t change the ruling

Won't work - gender identity is not a protected characteristic. (So, a changing room that aligns with yours is not a right, any more than one that's your favourite colour.) Oh, though, I suppose, indirect discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment? I shouldn't wade into legal matters, I'll wade out.

If all these vetted colleagues are so reliable and safe to be around then trans identifying men like Upton should have no fears or alarms about sharing the male changing rooms at work and have no requirement to demand entry to the ladies

What's the bet that at least some of the reporters covering this have been getting leads from following these threads?

👋 Hi journos!

How many iterations of the judgement will we see?

Another observation taken from a post above This is because both gender reassignment and sex are protected characteristics of equal weighting.

We really need a proper definition of what constitutes gender reassignment. Just putting on a dress and heels isn't enough - as has already been said this could just be a man in drag on a stag do, who hasn't the faintest intention of "living as a woman."

I bet they are hoping that fixing that particularly egregious error before the press conference this afternoon will somehow divert the flood of criticism. Fat chance.

My first thought!!!

Two versions of the judgment and its only Thursday.....

Agree. It’s not just correcting a typo…I read several ET judgements last week and saw some amendments when incorrect names were used for counsel etc but what Kemp has done goes well beyond a genuine error

Thanks. Your post has just made the penny drop about the wording of some policies at work.

The other misquote is the worst imo. Completely changes the meaning.

Oh this is such a mess! Why are they fiddling around changing it now?!

That’s true for discrimination; but he’s also entitled to a work environment free from harassment just like SP. So he can’t be subjected to conduct related to his PC of gender reassignment that violates his dignity, or creates a hostile environment, etc.

The judgment needs to say, essentially, that while he might genuinely feel his dignity may be violated by being refused permission to change with the women, it would not be reasonable for him to feel that way. While it is reasonable for SP to have felt his presence there violated her dignity its etc.

of course DU isn’t the claimant and hasn’t alleged harassment, so the judgment can’t say that explicitly.

but I think that’s on Kemp’s mind.

There is a problem with two conflicting protected characteristics not from the point of view of discrimination (at issue in provision of services to the public) but in respect of dignity at work - freedom from harassment - because both sides can make an argument of a hostile environment whichever way the question of who is to use female changing areas is answered.

Desperation!

It was when talking to a farmer many years ago that I finally properly got the idea that almost all the farm animals we see in fields are female. I knew beforehand as I'd worked on a museum farm as a dairy maid and used to hear people say 'Oh look, she's going to milk the bulls'!
These days, when I hear anyone speak of a bird/insect/hedgehog or whatever as 'he' I automatically say 'Or she!'. For goodness sake, earlier this week I was talking to two women friends about an owl's nest they'd found in their shed and they referred to the egg-sitting owl as 'he'

No, IANAL either. I'm just trying to get inside the TRA headspace. Far easier to beat an enemy you understand!