Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #59

[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), 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.

Following handing down of the judgment on 8 December 2025, on 11 December 2025, it was announced by Sandie Peggie and her legal team that they would be pursuing an appeal.

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
Thread 58: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58 11 December 2025 to 12 December 2025

I've created this thread shortly before it's actually needed. But if posters would continue to post on thread #58 until that one's full, that would be great.

Thank you yet again, @nauticant . Ahead of us as ever.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c1287013-6d89-4670-a818-77fbecadbd8a?shareToken=f9ede3090ace85defdacc06ff2787d07

Just reposting this useful summary of some of the errors in the judgment.

Please can anyone explain what would happen if the judgement was withdrawn?

Just come on here to laugh: "Not All Gays, which intervened in the case by providing written submissions, was referred to as “Not for Gays"

😂😂😂

I'm surprised the Judiciary doesn't have someone to proof read / fact check judgements. It undermines public trust this sort of nonsense.

In a good way for our case, but you get the point.

I read some posts saying that claimants in past tribunals that were judged by Sandy Kemp should be looking at his judgements carefully. When I googled, it came up with this case, on the face of it a very strange decision by SK to refuse most of her claim. Can you imagine SK's outrage if this had happened to Upton?

www.scotsman.com/news/crime/scottish-civil-servant-to-pursue-whistleblowing-claim-at-employment-tribunal-3467683

It won’t be now. That would undermine justice.

It has to be appealed and house of cards collapse on sight.

The typo shows bias.

All errors bend in one direction -> bias

We haven’t seen the end of this.

For the annals https://archive.ph/aAaj3

Ok thank you.

I'll be honest, I'm feeling a little like whichever way this goes, it's all a bit shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Does it really look any worse to have it withdrawn, than it does to have it go to appeal and collapse?

Having said that, I do understand that from Sandie's POV having it go to appeal would be better, and that that would be better for women's rights over all.

Although I am disgusted by the fact that Sandie is having to continue a fight which should never have been needed in the first place, in some ways I am quite heartened by these developments. Despite being open to the public, the vast majority of ETs are not attended and fall well under the radar. Shining a light on the judicial processes and decisions can only be a good thing in the long run as it should make all those involved - employers, lawyers and judges up their games.

I doubt that there’s a precedent for that. Logically, there would be no decision, which suggests Sandie would have to start all over again. But at whose expense? This is not the fault of the parties. So I think the consensus would be to avoid that, avoid accusations of bias, which also means a retrial, and raise all these issues in the appeal. That seems to be the thinking in the Judicial Office, ‘Leave us out of it’. But the Scottish judiciary must be well rattled; everyone will be asking what they have been getting away with

You can’t gain any of the reasoning from that. I’ll see if the judgment is available. I expect the claims were out of time

It’ll be worth a full forensic review if his cases.

IANAL, I doubt it will be withdrawn and it doesn't set legal precedent anyway.

When it's clearly poor quality, lawyers are unlikely to advise their clients along the lines argued.

We will have to wait until appeal(s) are submitted to see what grounds (Peggies lawyer wants to challenge on) and then what grounds are accepted as appealable.

It will be on points of law, they might also try for something wider.

It's entirely possible NHS Fife might decide to appeal too, whether to get clarity on the law or because they are just bonkers.

Like I said, just following up on comments from PPs that former claimants should be looking at SK's decisions very carefully.

Interesting, thank you!

"everyone will be asking what they have been getting away with"

I know I am.

When a judge cocks up this badly s/he doesn't get takesy-backsies & a do-over, & you're right, it would be horrific for SP & her family to have to go through all the business of a hearing again, Ben Cooper giving Kemp's dog's breakfast the proper kicking it deserves can't come soon enough (I'd have to assume I'd entered an alternate dimension if leave to appeal were denied after all this.)

I had a quick look and reading between the lines I suspect the claimant may have been a bit batshit. Being binned off by her TU rep and “unable to obtain legal advice” being clues there

Reference point thread
(done seperately so it does not get lost)
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5459104-supreme-court-ruling-the-actual-number-of-people-affected?reply=149147024

I think that, given the history of many TUs being extremely misogynist themselves, that is quite an unfair assertion. Also, note that many of the nurses bringing claims about transgender identifying men being allowed in their changing rooms have also been refused support by their TU.

Just reading between the lines as I say. It looks like he was acting and then withdrew and explained to the ET why, although that’s not disclosed. Being “unable to obtain legal advice “ also sounds odd. Batshit claimants with baseless claims do also actually exist .

I hope that these trade unions are eventually taken to court one by one.

I was refused support by my trade union in the communications sector, this was in 2019, pre the SC clarification ruling, but now any TUs still refusing to support for which they are being paid for surely is to some degree theft.

I think if someone did that it would be straight to police and criminal prosecution rather than ET.

Absolutely horrendous though if they did do that and then all lied about it and said she consented.