Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #58

1000 replies

nauticant · 11/12/2025 13:09

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), 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 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.

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 2025 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
Thread 57: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5457132-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-57 9 December 2025 to 11 December 2025

OP posts:
Thread gallery
58
NHSFifeStatementFinalFINALFinalVersionV9FINAL · 11/12/2025 16:55

Manro · 11/12/2025 16:53

I'm really sorry, I dip in and out of these threads and am feeling a bit lost here.

I take it that NC wasn't given the judgement in advance, and now that she has had time to look through it has spotted some inaccuracies in what the judge has said, is that right? Is it to the level that people outside of us are taking notice?

If anyone could give a couple of line summary I would be incredibly grateful.

Edited to add - also BC is getting involved?!?! Excellent!

Edited

It's not one line, and it's not just NC noticing the many errors in the judgement - but here is a summary you can skim-read if you like
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-valley-of-the-dolls/

The Valley Of The Dolls

The first and most important thing to note about yesterday’s judgment in the Sandie Peggie tribunal is that it’s a very big victory. The tribunal found that Sandie Peggie was gravely an…

https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-valley-of-the-dolls/

Harassedevictee · 11/12/2025 16:56

SirEctor · 11/12/2025 16:24

Naomi's going to be on it too, though, right? I thought I heard that BC was joining the team in addition to NC, not replacing her?

If I'm right then it's going to be the absolute dream team. Have they worked directly together before, does anyone remember?

Yes. Naomi has her hands full with many cases. Adding Ben to the team gives additional resource, a fresh pair of eyes and a high quality expert in this subject area.

I was criticised on the previous thread for thinking Ben might be better placed. Sadly structural misogyny and class, like racism, still exist in public institutions. It’s often subtle but it’s there. As an advocate Ben manages to cut through that and present compelling arguments in a way that Judges seem to get.

Naomi did a fantastic job with all the late disclosures and the gamesmanship from JR but ultimately SK believed the man not the woman.

SK’s judgement has given Ben, Naomi and the team a lot to work with.

Edited to Add. Ben was praised by the SC in their judgement. It is going to be hard for the EAT to ignore the SC judgement with Ben advocating.

MarieDeGournay · 11/12/2025 16:57

SqueakyDinosaur · 11/12/2025 16:37

I found this from a discussion elsewhere when the Census results were released a couple of years ago: it appears that up to 118,000 of that count could be false positives (I'm sure it's substantially less than that, but it just shows what a stupid question it was).

"262k answered "No" to the question of whether their sex and GI were the same.

Of those, 118k gave no further information, and AFAIK no link to other census information (that might give information on birth sex) has been made - or at least published.

Of the remaining 144k who did give further information, 48k said TM, 48k said TW, and the remaining 48k said either NB or another neogender.

So we don't know what the split is of the 118k. It's likely that a proportion of them didn't understand the question as per newspaper reports, but not all. All I think we can say is that of those prepared to give further information, it's a tidy 3 way split between TM, TW and other including NB."

It was me who brought this up on the previous thread - I like to state the literal number of transpeople because it is mindblowing that such a small number of people could turn society upside down as they have.

I use the 250,000 figure to be generous; if there are, as it appears, a lot less who really IDed as such in the census, then that makes it even more mindblowing.

The more people realise that all this is because of a tiny tiny number of people - I think it's 0.03% of the UK population - who already have the same rights as any other UK subject, the better.

SqueakyDinosaur · 11/12/2025 16:57

Manro · 11/12/2025 16:53

I'm really sorry, I dip in and out of these threads and am feeling a bit lost here.

I take it that NC wasn't given the judgement in advance, and now that she has had time to look through it has spotted some inaccuracies in what the judge has said, is that right? Is it to the level that people outside of us are taking notice?

If anyone could give a couple of line summary I would be incredibly grateful.

Edited to add - also BC is getting involved?!?! Excellent!

Edited

Margaret Gribbon, SP's solicitor, said that they had received the judgment at 10am on Tuesday, 3 hours before it was released to the press and public.

At the end of the hearing, NC had asked for sight of it 5 days ahead of general release, and IIRC Jane Russell concurred, and the judge agreed in principle but said he would have to ask his boss (the President of the Tribunal) for permission to do that. So it could be that Big Sond's hands were tied when it came to the timing. Still doesn't excuse the sloppiness and duplicity, though.

ProfessorBinturong · 11/12/2025 16:58

Naomi is great at working through the practical implications of an action (Pete!). Ben takes a sharp scalpel to legal wording. They complement each other nicely - and Ben's particular skill set is what an appeal needs.

dynamiccactus · 11/12/2025 16:59

ProfLargofesse · 11/12/2025 15:05

Trouble is it was EJ Kemp himself. Humiliating. Let's not undermine that by suggesting it was someone lower down the ranks who, in all probability, would have been far more careful even if they had only been a work experience kid!

How do we know that? It's entirely possible that a judicial assistant wrote the first draft and used AI to do so, and Kemp didn't supervise carefully enough.

There have been several cases now on lawyers using AI inappropriately and they were lucky to avoid regulatory proceedings against them. I can't really see why a judge should be immune.

ProfessorBinturong · 11/12/2025 17:00

Manro · 11/12/2025 16:53

I'm really sorry, I dip in and out of these threads and am feeling a bit lost here.

I take it that NC wasn't given the judgement in advance, and now that she has had time to look through it has spotted some inaccuracies in what the judge has said, is that right? Is it to the level that people outside of us are taking notice?

If anyone could give a couple of line summary I would be incredibly grateful.

Edited to add - also BC is getting involved?!?! Excellent!

Edited

She was given 3 hours instead of 5 days. It is littered with actual fabrication and inaccuracy as well as decidedly questionable reasoning. It is being dissected by the entirety of legal Twitter and several national newspapers.

ProfLargofesse · 11/12/2025 17:02

Manro · 11/12/2025 16:53

I'm really sorry, I dip in and out of these threads and am feeling a bit lost here.

I take it that NC wasn't given the judgement in advance, and now that she has had time to look through it has spotted some inaccuracies in what the judge has said, is that right? Is it to the level that people outside of us are taking notice?

If anyone could give a couple of line summary I would be incredibly grateful.

Edited to add - also BC is getting involved?!?! Excellent!

Edited

NC wasn't given it in advance and has made no comment.

Sandie's solicitor has spoken for Peggie, first to celebrate the partial win and secondly to announce the appeal. They didn't do so on the grounds of inaccuracy but because of the ruling overall.

So the appeal is not based on the inaccuracies although I'm sure they bwill feature but on the inchoate arguments for rejecting the other claims against Upton.

I am not a lawyer (IANAL) but in my inexpert view it is wholly contradictory to accept in the judgment that SP was harrassed but then to reject her other claims, in part, because no one else complained ie if she was clearly being harrassed and treated badly why would anyone else risk it. You can find NHS Fife guilty of harrassing a nurse who came forward BECAUSE she came forward and not therefore accept that this harrassment would have had a chilling effect.

GallantKumquat · 11/12/2025 17:02

ickky · 11/12/2025 16:54

The collateral damage of this case just keeps building.

The reputational damage to NHS Fife.

The CEO taking "early retirement".

The Judge that is being widely mocked.

How many more WTF moments are coming?

If they ever do make a mini series of all these Tribunals, people will think it has been exaggerated for sensationalist artistic purposes.

You couldn't make it up.

It's not just collateral damage, it's the sort of riveting - many people's work backlog is testament - cultural/political story that defines an age. The drama, personalities, and societal impact are truly extraordinary. To have watch forstater/FWS/EHRC Falkner/Peggie unfold is to have watched history unfolding.

yourhairiswinterfire · 11/12/2025 17:02

I typed up the conference in case it's handy for anyone who can't listen.

Sandie:
Thank you all for being here today. I would like to start by firstly thanking Neale Hanvey, who signposted me to Sex Matters. I turned to Neale and Sex Matters because my trade union RCN failed me when I needed them most.

Neale and Maya Forstater of SM supported and encourage me at a very dark time, following my suspension. Maya has been an inspiration and without her and her amazing team at Sex Matters, it is unlikely I would be standing here today.

Maya introduced me to my solicitor, Margaret Gribbon, and it is difficult to put into words how grateful I am to have found someone so determined to fight my corner. Margaret assembled an outstanding legal team by instructing Naomi Cunningham lead counsel and Dr Charlotte Elves junior counsel, whose brilliance exposed the grip gender ideology has on Fife health board, and how they treated me when I spoke the truth about sex.

I thank those who have made it possible for me to pursue my legal case with extraordinary generosity. I would also like to thank they many politicians and women's rights campaigners in Scotland who ensured I never felt alone in this battle, including For Women Scotland, Murray Blackburn Mackenzie, Women Won't Wheesht, Women's Rights Network Scotland, and LGB Alliance. As well as the many grassroots campaigners, many of whom attended my trial here in (?missed) to show their support.

I would like to thank everyone who donated to the crowd funder, set up in my name earlier this year which enabled me to make donations to charities very close to my heart. I have been overwhelmed by the messages of support from NHS colleagues, Scottish Ambulance Service, and from women and men here and abroad of all ages who have sent gifts, cards, and supportive messages. I would also like to thank the Darlington nurses and Christian Concern.

I would also like to thank the Scottish media and Tribunal Tweets, for taking such an interest in my case, and for reporting it to the wider public. Special thanks also to Dr Michael Foran, associate professor of law at University of Oxford, for his astute commentary on my case, and the law in this area.

Above all, I would like to thank my family and friends who have been a tower of strength over the past 2 years. My husband Darren, daughters Nicole and Emma and my mum Sheila, who has been my rock. Thank you all so much, and to my extended family and friends, many of whom are here today.

I must not forget Clare Bloom and volunteers of Women Won't Wheesht for helping organise today's event.

I am not a campaigner, and had never heard of the phrase 'gender critical' when I first raised complaints over 2 years ago about my employers decision to allow men into female-only changing rooms. I just knew instinctively that it wasn't right that women were expected to undress in front of men in private spaces, and I still believe this to be the case.

Whilst I am delighted that the tribunal was critical of Fife health board and found they had harassed me, the judgment I believe falls short in many respects and that is certainly why I won't be giving up this legal fight any time soon, and Margaret will tell you all about that.

Finally, I want to pay tribute to my late dad, who we lost in January, and who I know will be looking down on me feeling proud that he, with my mum, raised a daughter who did not, and will not wheesht.

Margaret Gribbon, Sandie's solicitor:

Fife health board unlawfully harassed Sandie Peggie over a lengthy period of time in 2024 in respect of 4 separate matters. This would be inexcusable for any employer, but particularly so in a large public sector body like NHS Fife. Given the tribunal findings that Fife health board committed multiple breaches of the Equality Act and persistently failed to comply with the tribunal order, my client is dismayed and troubled that senior politicians in Scotland saw fit to repeatedly express their full confidence in Fife health board.

Turning now to the tribunal's substantive findings, some of the findings are hugely problematic. For instance, the judgment places responsibility on female employees to raise complaints if they feel uncomfortable about sharing single-sex spaces with men. This ignores industrial realities. When Sandie objected she was suspended, subjected to an unreasonably lengthy disciplinary investigation, and falsely accused of patient care concerns. It emerged during the hearing that Fife health board then embarked on an archaeological dig to find material to discredit her. It was even suggested to Sandie by Fife health board's KC during her cross examination that she'd lied about having experienced a menstrual flood on Christmas Eve 2023. So against that background, it is difficult to envisage what woman would contemplate raising a complaint of this nature. In many workplaces there is a climate of fear around this issue, exacerbated by the failure of many trade unions, like Sandie's, to advocate for female members who seek to protect their hard won rights to single-sex spaces.

The judgment also places employers in the in(can't hear) position of having to make decisions about singe-sex workplace facilities based on the physical appearance of transgender employees and by asking them intrusive questions.

For these reasons and more, I can confirm that the tribunal's judgment will be appealed, and work on this is already underway. I'm also delighted to tell you that the legal team has been further strengthened by the addition of Ben Cooper KC, who will take the lead on the appeal which will be submitted to the Employment Appeal Tribunal next month. Thank you.

MarieDeGournay · 11/12/2025 17:03

Manro · 11/12/2025 16:53

I'm really sorry, I dip in and out of these threads and am feeling a bit lost here.

I take it that NC wasn't given the judgement in advance, and now that she has had time to look through it has spotted some inaccuracies in what the judge has said, is that right? Is it to the level that people outside of us are taking notice?

If anyone could give a couple of line summary I would be incredibly grateful.

Edited to add - also BC is getting involved?!?! Excellent!

Edited

It wasn't just NC who spotted the inaccuracies [as I'm sure she did], it was also - get this - even posters on trans/Reddit spotted them, and apparently they are also visible from space😄

ProfLargofesse · 11/12/2025 17:04

dynamiccactus · 11/12/2025 16:59

How do we know that? It's entirely possible that a judicial assistant wrote the first draft and used AI to do so, and Kemp didn't supervise carefully enough.

There have been several cases now on lawyers using AI inappropriately and they were lucky to avoid regulatory proceedings against them. I can't really see why a judge should be immune.

I think there is a difference between a lawyer using AI in their submissions which is the previous case being mentioned and a judge using it in a judgment. It doesn't really matter if clerks assisted, the writing of the judgment is his responsibility, like the captain of a ship, and since his arguments are building from these quotes he absolutely should have gone to source whatever had been presented to him either in submissions or by clerks.

Harassedevictee · 11/12/2025 17:04

I’ve just remembered on thing that will help is the transcript of the second part of the ET and summing up that SP paid for.
Having this will really help pull out an errors in the judgement.

Appalonia · 11/12/2025 17:05

nauticant · 11/12/2025 15:08

Thanks so much for posting that. I actually cried watching her thank everyone. It must be so overwhelming going through something like this. It's unbelievable that we are having to defend such a basic right for women in this day and age. I'm just so grateful for everyone who's been fighting this. We will get there, but everyone's working so hard, just to defend something we ( thought ) we already had. How fragile our rights have turned out to be...

SirEctor · 11/12/2025 17:07

prh47bridge · 11/12/2025 16:43

He also represented Sex Matters in the FWS case in the Supreme Court.

Yes, I suppose that's the most relevant case. There really is nobody better placed to take this forward. It's amazing news.

MyThreeWords · 11/12/2025 17:08

ickky · 11/12/2025 15:51

Yes like this 😁

That is freaky freaky like a David Lynch film.

I think I must have a specific phobia about turkeys opening up to reveal desiccated hollows. Wonder what the medical term is for that.

MarieDeGournay · 11/12/2025 17:09

yourhairiswinterfire · Today 17:02
I typed up the conference in case it's handy for anyone who can't listen.

Thank you so much, that was a very thoughtful and useful thing to do.
I am hard of hearing and - annoyingly and embarrassingly - any unfamiliar-to-me accent is very difficult to understand. So it was great to be able to read every word of Sandie's wonderful speech. Much appreciated💐

ickky · 11/12/2025 17:11

SqueakyDinosaur · 11/12/2025 17:08

That is an excellent RickRoll. 😂

UtopiaPlanitia · 11/12/2025 17:11

Majorconcern · 11/12/2025 16:20

That would be such a brilliant watch, hope we can access the EAT

Huge swathes of FWR are all going to be desperately trying to book annual leave/clear our diaries so we can watch the proceedings as they happen 🙂

Edited: Spelling

mateysmum · 11/12/2025 17:12

I wonder if one of the reasons Ben has been brought on board is because Naomi will be busy with a possible appeal on Kelly? Have we heard anything more following that bizarre ruling?

chilling19 · 11/12/2025 17:13

ProfLargofesse · 11/12/2025 15:07

And Ben Cooper added to team! Yeah!

Best news ever - our Ben and Naomi - power team!

MyAmpleSheep · 11/12/2025 17:14

selffellatingouroborosofhate · 11/12/2025 17:01

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5457132-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-57?reply=149117936

@MyAmpleSheep that's why I mentioned W(HSW)R1992 as well, using the word "or". If the changing room is a workplace one, the regs apply. And in 1992, there was no GRA, so references to men and women would have used their ordinary, everyday meaning.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 doesn't define "penis". We all know what one is, so it doesn't need to.

NHSFife wasn't charged with a breach of the 1992 regulations (and can't be, in an ET). As far as we know, nobody has ever been charged with breaching regulation 20.

I agree that in 1992 it would have meant mean and women in the biological sense, but since "the law is always speaking" that's not a slam-dunk that a court will see it the same way at the end of 2025, 32 years later. A lot has changed in 32 years.

SP wants the court to accept that an alleged breach of a regulation whose interpretation has never been tested means that harassment has occurred on one side, and could not have occurred on the other.

The court is not allowed to say "these rules cannot be interpreted in a compatible way" - it has to find a way to make the rules fit, and something has to give. We have to accept the legal fiction that Parliament is infallible in having a consistent intention that is expressed in all laws and regulations simultaneously.

This case seems to me to be a bit like Escher's waterfall: every small section can be self-consistent, but when you step back to look at the whole landscape there's a problem.

MarieDeGournay · 11/12/2025 17:14

UtopiaPlanitia · 11/12/2025 17:11

Huge swathes of FWR are all going to be desperately trying to book annual leave/clear our diaries so we can watch the proceedings as they happen 🙂

Edited: Spelling

Edited

Hey, why don't we all go to Belfast and watch it live on the Bigly Screen?😁
[ for the puzzled: that's a ref to the Sara Morrison v Belfast Film Festival case]

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.