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

Thank you all for responses and links. I think I get the precambrian rabbits though will need to revisit...In meantime laundry sadly calls but you might like to note that GC people are referred to as "the wickedest people on this wretched island" by one poster on reddit. Think I have correctly quoted but happy to verify.

Upton is a fully intact male, in a female changing room, watching or hoping to watch female nurses changing. That is in my opinion and I suspect the majority of people - sexual harassment. Any male who deliberately enters a female changing room, is doing it for nefarious reasons and those people trying to defend him, have lost the moral high ground.

I am pretty much of the same opinion. I formed that when I heard that he stripped down to a bra - that he was a man who got a thrill from wearing women's clothes, and was quite happy to reveal the fact. No doubt if he'd tried that in the male changing room he'd be laughed at, but I would think that the remedy there would be for NHS Fife to remind the other blokes that they were not allowed to discriminate against Upton on the basis of his clothing (gender reassignment). But no, the buck was passed to the women, who were expected to put up with it.

The judge's opinion that a man presenting as a woman by his choice of clothing is increasingly out of date. 100 years ago virtually all women, except a few avant garde ones wore skirts. Now we are just as likely to wear trousers on a daily basis, and skirts and dresses occasionally.

It also puts SP in the position of having to decide if she’s going to turn her back on him while she changes - leaving her vulnerable and having no knowledge of if he’s ignoring her/watching her /preparing to attack her. Or facing him while she changes - meaning she may look like she’s a voyeur/unwittingly see him in a state of undress/unwittingly play into his agp fantasies.

It’s not a decision I’d like to have to make.

I know of a SENDIST appeal where the judge who considered the permission to appeal (Judge Meleri Tudur) reviewed and set aside the original decision without it needing to go to the upper tribunal. Could this happen here?

The phrase was -
The Tribunal has decided to review the decision pursuant to Rule 47(1).

and it then identified two errors in law in the original Judge’s decision.

The Local Authority were given permission to make submissions, but the judge was not convinced by their arguments, so the case was subsequently relisted for a full rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal on the first available date.

For background, the parents’ appeal was put together by a barrister (arranged via a SEND charity) so there were written submissions for the appeal but it didn’t get to the upper tribunal. I don’t know how similar the tribunal processes are, so perhaps this couldn’t happen here.

Does that mean? No... I shouldn't even think it, especially about a Scottish judge. If your gender is defined by wearing a skirt, then does that mean that all Scotsmen who wear kilts are in fact self identifying as women and should be treated accordingly?

Somehow, I don't feel like asking any of the Scots regiments whether that is the case. I'm very proud of my blood. I want it in my veins and arteries.

No. It simply requires women to believe that biological men shouldn't be in the women's facilities.

Thanks, that makes sense.

if the ET is right that an employer can allow men into the women's changing rooms.

philosophically, and practically, this doesn't make any sense to me.

If the employee's rights to object to the presence of somebody of the opposite sex can be over ridden, I don't think single sex facilities have any point and it would be better to have purpose built mixed or unisex facility.

It also puts the employer into the position of having to make judgements about their employees, but with no tangible information for decision making.

I am pleased to learn about Not Even Wrong and Russell’s Teapot. How had I never heard of them before?

In fact pretty much every aspect and argument of transgenderism falls foul of one or the other - sometimes both - of them.

That is a really good point.
Many of us naturally turn our backs while changing, even in a truly single-sex environment. I don't know that I would want to turn my back on a male in my CR, particularly if I was the only other person there. I would certainly want to get between him and the door.

Edit for clarity

It also puts the employer into the position of having to make judgements about their employees, but with no tangible information for decision making.

Which is part of why the SC decided FWS as they did and why I think this ET has got it badly wrong.

I have to go back and read FWS again, then. From what I remember, a significant part of the reasoning in it to rule that sex referred to biological sex was that within itself the EA became a nonsense to interpret it any other way. That, essentially, the Act is riddled with use of the word man and woman in different contexts and only one interpretation consistently used could be correct. They painstakingly pointed out it’s only for the purpose of one Act - harmoniousness between different Acts isn’t a consideration (am I right?)

So the reasoning behind the reasoning in FWS is to look and see what interpretation of men/women makes best sense within the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the head legislation for the Workplace Regulations 1992, and all of its subsidiary regulations.

According to an AI search (don’t shoot me) the word woman doesn’t appear anywhere in the HSW Act.

But - it does appear in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, also passed under HSWA, which includes

Risk assessment in respect of new or expectant mothers
16.—(1) Where—
(a)the persons working in an undertaking include women of child-bearing age; and
(b)…

I think it’s a good argument for self consistency that all regulations under the HSW use the same meaning of man or woman. If “men” included trans-identifying women they would be denied the protections provided by section 16 MHSWR. (Similarly to FWS arguments that precluded denying pregnancy discrimination protection to the same cohort).

OK - so now I am starting to be persuaded that the WR rules must take on a biological meaning.

(I’m sure sure BC is all over this, but if not, someone might want to point the MHSWR out to him).

I've not caught up to the end of this thread yet, but just wanted to say that Kemp has cost the tax payer and Sandie Peggie's backer thousands and thousands of pounds. This ridiculous judgement is bad enough in forcing an appeal but also the interminable time wasted in court. Late starts, early finishes, hourly breaks, and forcing everyone to speak at his writing pace, or making everyone wait while he catches up may have doubled the days spent in court.

I get the writing as thinking principle (I do it myself) but to then cut and paste a load of of made up twaddle to force the outcome goes to show very little thinking went on at all. He's a disgrace.

@MyAmpleSheep

According to an AI search (don’t shoot me) the word woman doesn’t appear anywhere in the HSW Act.

Being pedantic, it does but only because HSW repealed the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920!

Pedant mode off.

That means that while separating by biological sex in the provision of toilets, changing facilities etc. is certainly legal, it may not be the only legal separation.

This isn't a legal argument, but if you are an employer, the easiest thing to do is just have mixed sex services for everyone. If the 1992 regulations mandate a particular way for toilets and changing rooms to be organised and built, you have to ask why.

I don't think it makes sense to force employers to go to the expense of providing these facilities, if the choice about who uses which services can't be explained.

Some commentators have suggested that Kemp was deliberately selected to hear this case because of its importance and because he is a Company man. But his tolerance of the delaying tactics employed by Fife rebounded horribly when FWS popped up during one of the pauses and shot great holes in J Russell's arguments. The Company man just doesn't have the intellect needed to produce a plausible response so resorted to the measures employed by struggling undergraduates. but 'my printer wasn't working' is a better one

That isn’t really practical because they’re supposed to be separate single use facilities so fine for a coffee shop but not for a company with 500 men and 600 women.

I think so too.

WR1992 have been confirmed as sex-based. The problem is with employers' discretion to allow in some men exceptionally (as SSE rules don't apply).

Upton and Peggie both have protected beliefs (though I would argue that his are non-WORIADS to the extent they require unconsenting women to grant him access).

His beliefs have state endorsement, but the effect must be limited by Article 9.

So the employer must accommodate both, requiring neither of them to share intimate space with men.

This is not onerous for the employer. It should be easy to find out how many gender non-believers they have, and allocate strictly single-sex provision accordingly, without breaching anyone's confidentiality.

And they must do that, to avoid a harassment finding like Fife suffered.

During the case, I think many people thought that he was trying to get everything right because it was likely that either Upton or Peggie would appeal.

I'm mystified that he doesn't even seem to have checked that his quotes were correct.

Nervous breakdown?

Kemp is just the latest person to throw their career under a bus in homage to the self-delusion of Dr Upton. How many more?

'Isn't it grand? Isn't it rich?
Look at the charm in every stitch!
The suit of clothes is altogether, it's altogether, but altogether
The most remarkable suit of clothes that I have ever seen'

It should be easy to find out how many gender non-believers they have, and allocate strictly single-sex provision accordingly, without breaching anyone's confidentiality.

But then what kind of provision do they provide for everyone else, if not mixed sex, and then how does that comply with the 1992 regs on fully enclosed cubicles?

I think PP is saying mixed-sex multi-user would be easiest if legal - but it isn't, and there must be a reason for that.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/sandie-peggie-tribunal-ruling-shows-36390810

Former SNP health sec calls it a 'fiasco'.

Yes, this is what I meant.

Not our problem. Government made this mess.

But his tolerance of the delaying tactics employed by Fife rebounded horribly when FWS popped up during one of the pauses and shot great holes in J Russell's arguments.

If it had concluded in February when it would have done without Fife mucking about the judgement may have come before the Supreme Court. Although Upton hadn't and couldn't have had a gender recognition certificate at the time, NHS Fife might have tried to argue that since they weren't allowed to ascertain this, then I had to assume that all men attempting to present as women had one and had to be allowed into women's single sex spaces.

If a GRC did allow a man into the women's changing rooms, you could get the absurd situation that Upton or another TiM without a GRC couldn't use the women's changing room, went off, was awarded his GRC and the next working day now could, yet he would be exactly the same person. I read the Supreme Court judgement as trying to make this point.

Since the original event happened almost two years ago and Upton had been transitioning since the previous August, he has now passed the two year lime limit, so could apply for a GRC and might for all we know have one.