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

What the actual….. are they doing a NHS Fife Friday afternoon statement….

Can we compare the versions to show the changes?

Anyone got Adobe Pro?

I refuse to give those bastards any money. (I mean Adobe - I think you'd be able to use that programme for a comparison)

The files are titled differently and different sizes.

On the scale of the search -

There are about 45 Employment Judges in Scotland.

Around half of them are known as fee paid judges. They are mostly solicitors or advocates still in private practice. There are typically about 22 salaried judges.

In contrast to fee paid judges, salaried judges have left their practice as a solicitor or barrister or their academic role to devote themselves fully to performing judicial duties.

Most salaried Employment Judges have been appointed from the ranks of fee paid Employment Judges who, in turn, have mostly been drawn from the ranks of expert practitioners and academics specialising in employment and discrimination law.

There is no difference in authority between the judgment of a salaried Employment Judge and the judgment of a fee paid Employment Judge.

Sometimes, the Employment Judge may decide a case with two lay individuals known as non-legal members.

There are about 120 non-legal members sitting in Scotland. They are split into two panels.

The first panel is for those with experience of the workplace from the perspective of an employer, such as a business owner or human resources specialist.

The second panel is for those with experience of the workplace from the perspective of an employee, such as a trade union official.

For some types of case, a non-legal member will be appointed from each panel to sit with the Employment Judge, so that there are three people in total. This ensures that the Employment Tribunals have a balance of industrial experience

I don’t but I would get it tomorrow if needed

ProfessorThreeWord Harpy - Darlington judge, of whom we became so fond, must be feeling a little on edge right now, I would think. People might just take a keen interest in in every word he writes

I caution against it, tbh. Adobe will invade your house, suck your brain out your ears, steal all your secrets, and sell them on to Beelzebub himself.

I mean, the software is very handy, but still.

There are apparently free apps that can do a side by side comparison. Maybe a job for tomorrow.

So far I’ve not been put off doing it again if we continue to have multiple legal hearings going on at once. I have a spreadsheet with the links and intro text and everything!

The another on the 8th was the smaller file at 1.99 mb and the Dr Upton on the 9th at 2.31 mb.

They've got the same number of pages 312 and as a check para 791 is on page 183 on both and the pages start and finish on exactly the same words on both.

Could just saving a file with a new name add that much to the size?

I know it lies but here is what Grok has to say

In imitation of 60s poets Howard Bergerson & JA Lindon. Admittedly, Kerouac gets the most plaudits for doing cut-ups but those two came up with the wheeze.

Edit for dyslexia - yes in something that short!

Claimants don’t get to play pick your own judge. The judge is there as a representative of the Crown (which is why the royal crest is behind/above them) and unless there’s a conflict it’s like it or lump it.

Yes, thanks! That's it. I am guessing a change to the listing doesn't count as a formal correction. But it makes Dr B Upton much more googleable so there's that.

Maybe they made changes quietly (for whatever reason) so as not to invite comparison between ET Scotland and NHS Fife comms teams? 😁

Apologies for the interruption, I thought I’d reply but the thread has moved on. I can’t reveal my sources 😅.
Corresponded with MPs is a little hopeful - It’s been pretty much one way with a couple of notable exceptions.

Years ago, I started with the question of ‘why are public toilet door gaps going, because I know they are lifesaving?’ and it snowballed.

The H&S legislation, building regs and standards and even The Sexual Offences Act were all built on the reality of biological sex. If you change the meaning of woman and man, all of these have to change.

There are many people who have been involved in public sanitation all their working lives and I expect can’t believe that so many people are talking about it now. They have crafted the clauses for years and suddenly people are stating all sorts of bizarre things as if it’s a free for all.

I don’t know how to describe it other than a craftsman taking years to design and build a house then haughty first time buyers come along and say we like the rooms but get rid of the foundations.

I expect all the first time buyers are meeting the master craftsmen and being told how it will fall down.

Weirdly though when they issued the 2 page correction pdf it was back to and another.

Well that's sold it to me! Thanks all

https://mark-summerfield.github.io/diffpdf.html might help. The author's message about no longer selling it is misleading: he's giving the licence file free, not ceasing to supply it.

@ArabellaSaurus Just wanted to say I'm with you on Adobe.

I’m curious about the previous judgements Kemp has made. Are they also dubious and riddled with errors?

Draftable will do pdf and word up to 10mb, not on a phone though, it's online no download needed

www.draftable.com/compare

I’m not convinced…as the errors of law have been made in such a way that the errors have not been made FROM the facts, if you see what I mean.

The errors of law are in the law being applied to the facts, not a misinterpretation of the facts. Hard as it is to see the logic I’m following but the difference is, I think, that Kemp misunderstood the law before he applied it to a reading of the facts. If he had erroneously applied the law then that would require resource to the facts and how the law was misapplied but when the law is misunderstood before any further act then the facts themselves don't come into it.

So the panel agreed that Upton is male with a PC of gender reassignment and that fact is not in dispute but then comes the bonkers bit: because, in their view, he had permission to be there he wasn’t, therefore, harassing SP and because he wasn’t a manager or someone who deals in complaints he had no responsibilities as to the question of whether he should be in there or not and SP manifested her GC belief incorrectly so wasn’t credible. And because she wasn’t credible she wasn’t being harassed or discriminated against.

None of that works because the law is that single sex spaces must be single sex spaces and gender reassignment PC does not change that because man is man when it comes to SS Spaces.

its really easy to dismiss everything Kemp argued because he has misunderstood the FWS ruling.

It doesn’t matter that he has tried to shift the goal posts from public services to work place and then excluded work place regs from his thinking because the FWS judgment was really clear on that.

So it goes back to misunderstanding the law rather than whether he got the facts wrong.

All the guff around why SS spaces are not legitimate if they exclude nice fragrant Trans doctors like Upton because trans women are no more of a risk to women than women (sic) is irrelevant because the law says SS spaces that exclude such are fine and dandy.

I suppose the main point that is frustrating and which I doubt the appeal will address is that Upton wound up the managers so that they did harass and discriminate. They discriminated against SP at his instigation and then made hay with it. I find it personally wounding that Upton and NHSFife have got away with that by this judgment and I would love the appeal court to consider that but I don’t think they will.

You can also share a link to the compared versions, presume it doesn't last forever but useful

Good points. I think though that Kemp’s judgment was designed to reduce damages. I think that’s why he didn’t reprimand NHS Fife re disclosure, just said it was a bit of a hassle.

The EAT has to accept the tribunal's findings of fact. It also has to accept the tribunal's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses. But, with so many basic errors in it, do we really think the tribunal's judgement can be trusted on those things? And if it can't, the EAT cannot use those findings of fact, etc., to determine the outcome of the case. The only way out of that is to send the case back to be heard by a different tribunal.

A little bird told me that there’s also the cost of Ben’s support wren’s retainer to consider.