Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

1 2 ··· 23 24 25 ··· 39 40

Original poster

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

1000 replies

nauticant · 12/12/2025 19:37

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

OP posts:

Thread gallery

Cailleach1 · 14/12/2025 20:20

NotanotherWeek · 14/12/2025 19:45

Having read the Scotsman and listened to Foran, I don’t see how the appeal court can make any sensible order on the specifics of this case. How do you pull any factual threads together sufficiently to assess what harms have been done and how they should be compensated? None of the findings of fact or credibility are remotely reliable.Every new thing we hear about the decision exposes the ghastliness of the mess. I hope Sandie and her team have a view about how to handle a retrial, but would they change their views as to settlement criteria if, say, NHS Scotland ensured all its hospitals complied with FWS and, very hypothetically, if Parliament bites the bullet and approves the EHRC guidance?

Any settlement with the hospital still leaves the second respondent, though. He is a separate respondent from the hospital, isn’t he?

prh47bridge · 14/12/2025 20:24

Largesso · 14/12/2025 20:09

Interesting view. I think, however, they can just rule on errors of law and how those errors have scaffolded into incorrect decisions.

I think the most logical approach is to treat all the guff as fruit of the poisonous tree, as it were. Ie that the guff is created from the initial
legal errors which then grow and grow.

I don’t think they need to unpack the the whole idiocy.

IANAL so others will have informed views but from a lay perspective it would seem straightforward enough to rule that BOTH respondents 1 & 2 are guilty of harassment given the errors in law, and that the harassment then led to indirect and direct discrimination.

That’s if an intelligent and non-captured EAT judge is appointed.

Kemp clearly has got above himself and thought he could rewrite laws and it is not impossible that another of those sits on the EAT panel. They also might close ranks to protect Kemp and make him look less of an arse and that might skew their thinking.

But I think a stronger motivator will be that they won’t want to face the same ridicule.

They will keep it to errors of law, which seems quite easy on the face of it, and will dismiss with a light touch the findings formed from those errors.

I would hope they would also find opportunity to rip NHSFife a new one with regard to their behaviour as Kemp has not even given them a reprimand.

Behind closed doors, I imagine, is where Kemp will actually be carpeted and we probably won’t get, sadly, to witness that.

If SP's team attack the whole thing, which I expect they will, the EAT will have to deal with that. They can't take the points of law and ignore the rest. They will have to look at the question of bias if it is raised. They will have to look at any findings of fact for which there are no supporting evidence.

This judgement is so bad that I currently expect it to lead to a rehearing with a different tribunal. I will be pleased if the EAT feels able to find in SP's favour on all counts without sending it back to tribunal, but I would be surprised if they feel able to do that.

spannasaurus · 14/12/2025 20:30

Could there be a situation where the EAT says we could find in favour of SP for all the claims against Fife without sending it back to tribunal but we would need to send back for the claims against Upton?

nicepotoftea · 14/12/2025 20:32

BezMills · 14/12/2025 17:46

I am completely against judging or categorising people on "passing" or "making a good effort" or anything like that. I think it's particularly unfair to middle aged males, no matter what they think of their own appearance but it's not fair on anyone really

As @ickky said, it puts employers and service providers in an untenable position, for which they have no capacity nor expertise.

Show quote history

Agree, and also from what Michael Foran said, Kemp didn't consider the 1992 H&S regs because they relate to Criminal law and he considered that outside the scope of what the tribunal could consider. However, they aren't outside the scope of what an employer has to consider!

SqueakyDinosaur · 14/12/2025 20:32

A question for the legal peeps here, including @prh47bridge: Are EAT judges drawn from a different, more senior pool than ET judges?

NotanotherWeek · 14/12/2025 20:33

Largesso · 14/12/2025 20:09

Interesting view. I think, however, they can just rule on errors of law and how those errors have scaffolded into incorrect decisions.

I think the most logical approach is to treat all the guff as fruit of the poisonous tree, as it were. Ie that the guff is created from the initial
legal errors which then grow and grow.

I don’t think they need to unpack the the whole idiocy.

That’s if an intelligent and non-captured EAT judge is appointed.

But I think a stronger motivator will be that they won’t want to face the same ridicule.

They will keep it to errors of law, which seems quite easy on the face of it, and will dismiss with a light touch the findings formed from those errors.

I would hope they would also find opportunity to rip NHSFife a new one with regard to their behaviour as Kemp has not even given them a reprimand.

Behind closed doors, I imagine, is where Kemp will actually be carpeted and we probably won’t get, sadly, to witness that.

But to fix damages, I think they need to know who did what. I can’t see it unless they can find arrive at a position where all the findings of fact in the ET are irrelevant

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 20:38

nauticant · 14/12/2025 19:50

Next case to be launched:

Sandie Peggie vs Judicial Office for Scotland.

@nauticant - this is a welfare check. Are you fit, healthy and of sound mind to withstand the burden of eleventy million thousand more threads as Sandie does a takedown of every institution and stronghold in Scotland, the UK then the world? 🌎

TheCorrsDidDreamsBetter · 14/12/2025 20:39

I managed to catch a bit of Michael Forans live stream before being hoiked out for the Santa's on Motorbikes annual festivities, and I will admit I haven't read the whole judgement, but he talked about the legal test that this tribunal has recommended that employers genuinely look at this on a case by case basis, meaning per each Trans employee who wishes to access single sex provision.

How on earth is that even feasible?

Not only would they have to consider, as they propose, each trans individual on their current transitional status etc. But each woman in those female spaces too. For businesses that have thousands of employees on rotation in a building how can that reasonably be achieved? It just can't can it, so what were the tribunal thinking proposing this sort of screening process?

weegielass · 14/12/2025 20:42

yes EAT judges are more senior and I think there's 4 in Scotland,including Lord Fairley and Lady Haldane. I think the court is called the court of session up here.
Lady Haldane was the one whose judgement (that sex wasnt just biological sex) led to the FWS appeal (and win) at the Supreme Court.
It would be interesting if the Sandie Peggie case fell on her desk...

nicepotoftea · 14/12/2025 20:45

TheCorrsDidDreamsBetter · 14/12/2025 20:39

How on earth is that even feasible?

It's completely pointless.

I'm sure it was explained during the tribunal that there is no point in having a single sex changing room if nobody can be certain whether it will actually be single sex. (Kemp did at least agree that for the purposes of the law, Upton is male).

However, according to Kemp, you have to wait until you find a man in the changing room, and then your employer decides on a case by case after consulting with other staff whether they can use the women's changing room. How on earth that protects anyone's privacy (in any sense of the word) is a mystery.

Boiledbeetle · 14/12/2025 20:50

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 20:38

Show quote history

The year is 2039, it's mid December, sometime around lunchtime...

@nauticant, who hasn't left the house or had a social life since the incident in 2034 when she nearly missed a smooth thread continuation, posts the 1,000,000th Sandie Peggie thread.

🍾

Original poster

nauticant · 14/12/2025 20:53

I did wonder earlier "how on earth did I get into this?" and after a quick search found the patient zero post:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse?page=38&reply=141905521

How could I have been so blind?

OP posts:

NotanotherWeek · 14/12/2025 20:55

Cailleach1 · 14/12/2025 20:20

Any settlement with the hospital still leaves the second respondent, though. He is a separate respondent from the hospital, isn’t he?

Show quote history

I see that as less of a problem. Upton’s damages will be met by Fife’s funds, so no reason for him to care much. But NC has said she needs total capitulation and admission of wrongness before a settlement is acceptable, and I think that’s because she wants and needs the political impact of the main perpetrator, here Fife, accepting what the law is. If it’s clear that political will is shifting in that direction anyway, that could be less of a concern

weegielass · 14/12/2025 20:55

I think you might have grounds to take your own legal action against Big Sond and NHS Fife@nauticant

Boiledbeetle · 14/12/2025 20:55

nauticant · 14/12/2025 20:53

I did wonder earlier "how on earth did I get into this?" and after a quick search found the patient zero post:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse?page=38&reply=141905521

How could I have been so blind?

It was February, it was a more innocent time, you weren't to know. Don't blame yourself!

But let this be a lesson to all. Never, never ever offer to start the next thread!

Original poster

nauticant · 14/12/2025 20:56

Right, let's see what Free Speech Nation has to make of all of this:

OP posts:

Deafnotdumb · 14/12/2025 21:04

Here's a stiff brandy, @nauticant. I've been watching in fascination as Sandie steams through the Fife establishment and they kill their reputation, self respect or career. I'm waiting for the SNP to enter the

On the plus side, you will be able to write a book when this is finished composed solely of these threads.

prh47bridge · 14/12/2025 21:04

SqueakyDinosaur · 14/12/2025 20:32

A question for the legal peeps here, including @prh47bridge: Are EAT judges drawn from a different, more senior pool than ET judges?

Yes, they are. However, to correct @weegielass a little, the EAT and the Court of Session are different courts. If SP loses at the EAT, she can appeal to the Court of Session. Just to confuse matters, a Court of Session judge can sit on an EAT.

NotanotherWeek · 14/12/2025 21:05

nauticant · 14/12/2025 20:53

I did wonder earlier "how on earth did I get into this?" and after a quick search found the patient zero post:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse?page=38&reply=141905521

How could I have been so blind?

You’ll have to hope that if there’s a retrial, the new judge can touch type

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 21:06

Boiledbeetle · 14/12/2025 20:50

The year is 2039, it's mid December, sometime around lunchtime...

@nauticant, who hasn't left the house or had a social life since the incident in 2034 when she nearly missed a smooth thread continuation, posts the 1,000,000th Sandie Peggie thread.

🍾

Show quote history

@nauticant no longer any original body parts. So integral was she to the cause of sex realism global takedown, the burden of bearing the weight of the world’s truth took its toll. Her loyal fans & contributors offered their body parts, organs and in one case a brain 🧠 graft as she needed more core capacity.

The world 🌍 owes a debt of gratitude to Nauticant. Oft considered to be of nautical inclination - she was just plain old naughty. 👿

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 21:08

Deafnotdumb · 14/12/2025 21:04

On the plus side, you will be able to write a book when this is finished composed solely of these threads.

Just bish, bash, bosh all threads into AI and you have something of such quality as an esteemed Court production.

ickky · 14/12/2025 21:09

nauticant · 14/12/2025 20:53

I did wonder earlier "how on earth did I get into this?" and after a quick search found the patient zero post:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5186317-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse?page=38&reply=141905521

How could I have been so blind?

It's an easy mistake to make. I would have never thought that the Peggie case would go on this long. I see I may have also encouraged you to start the next thread. I apologise profusely. <but still secretly pleased that I managed to swerve it>

I thought the Darlington nurses was going to mammoth, so made myself scarce for that one too.

MyrtleLion · 14/12/2025 21:11

I don't see how Kemp can continueas an employment judge. Surely every claimant's barrister will ask him to recuse himself on the grounds that any judgment of his will be written by AI...

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 21:13

MyrtleLion · 14/12/2025 21:11

I don't see how Kemp can continueas an employment judge. Surely every claimant's barrister will ask him to recuse himself on the grounds that any judgment of his will be written by AI...

Unless you identify as trans two spirit non binary pan sexual. In that case he and L Brown and C Russell are your panel!

SqueakyDinosaur · 14/12/2025 21:14

I wonder if in light of the absolute clusterfuck of court management meaning there had to be three separate tranches of court sitting days, word has gone out to other EA judges that they need to manage time in their courts better and more proactively? And if not, why not? Obviously, sometimes things will overrun, but e.g. DU and ?? Maggie Curren (the one who wanged on for half a day about DSDs when they're utterly fucking irrelevant) should surely have been directed to just answer the bloody question?

Flip

1 2 ··· 23 24 25 ··· 39 40

Please create an account

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

Join Mumsnet Log In

This thread is not accepting new messages.

Swipe left for the next trending thread