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 ··· 27 28 29 ··· 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

NebulousSupportPostcard · 15/12/2025 00:12

Boiledbeetle · 14/12/2025 23:19

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

Show quote history

Listed here as upton https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/s-peggie-v-fife-health-board-and-dr-b-upton-4104864-slash-2024
and pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/693ac29933c7ace9c4a42024/4104864.2024PeggieFifeFH11.12.25corrected.pdf

Was there a secret squirrel interim corrected doc as well?

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 00:18

Just to add, my view is that this judgement is so fundamentally flawed that any attempt to fix it will be building a house on sand. I think the only way forward is to rehear the case. However, disclosure is now presumably complete, so that shouldn't cause any more holdups, and hopefully another judge will keep a tighter rein on proceedings and stop Fife witnesses wittering on about irrelevant stuff like DSDs. Another judge may also stop JR bringing in SP's husbands views (irrelevant) and stop her repeatedly claiming that SP is a bigot without evidence.

Boiledbeetle · 15/12/2025 00:20

NebulousSupportPostcard · 15/12/2025 00:12

Was there a secret squirrel interim corrected doc as well?

Show quote history

it could be totally innocent 🤔😶 ? Or are these files being uploaded originally to a Scottish judiciary website and then being reloaded on the main gov.uk site? I'm wondering if that's causing the file name changes?

MyAmpleSheep · 15/12/2025 00:20

@prh47bridge Do you think JR will be asked to take it on?

NebulousSupportPostcard · 15/12/2025 00:29

Boiledbeetle · 15/12/2025 00:20

Show quote history

Minor changes to the pdf version could be totally innocent. But changing the listing from "another" to "Dr Upton" will have greater consequences for Dr Upton when people search his name. He has been named inside the pdf text in all versions but the listing "and another" appeared to be a deliberate attempt to sheild him.

BettyBooper · 15/12/2025 00:39

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 14/12/2025 21:31

I’m going to bang this drum 🥁 loud and hard for a while now.

Two women sat alongside Kemp.
They heard all the evidence.
They saw what he saw.
They agreed in principle.
They steered his thinking.

Sure he fired the bullet. But they all loaded the gun.

Ms L Brown (likely appointed 2020) (10 cases to her name) and Ms C Russell (appointed more recently)(fewer) have also their names on this judgment and endorsed it.

They heard about a menopausal woman experiencing flooding in front of a young man in a bra. It should have meant something to them, women in their middle age. They heard a 28 year old newly wed man in a bra was making notes on a 50 year old nurse of 30 years experience, fixated because she wouldn’t strip for him. They saw a large gangly 6 foot man with a widow’s peak call himself a biological woman.

And they said He was credible.

It is in their names and on their heads be it.

Show quote history

I've got an L Brown here with Kemp in 2019 in case relevant....

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d28991040f0b64a84cda410/Stewart_v_Tayside_health_Board-4108777.2018-Final.pdf

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 00:40

MyAmpleSheep · 15/12/2025 00:20

@prh47bridge Do you think JR will be asked to take it on?

Edited

No idea. Depends if Fife are happy with her performance so far.

CriticalConditionUnamendedVersion · 15/12/2025 00:42

The respondents must know their chances on appeal and/or a re-hearing are not good. JR at least knows all the ins and outs and it would be cheaper to retain her than instruct someone new who has to read in from the start. And frankly I can't see her volunteering to drop it or a queue of other counsel lining up to take it on.

Binglebong · 15/12/2025 00:55

Sorry to backpedle but has anyone got any link ti the case discussed above, the other one with loony happenings? Thank you!

BettyBooper · 15/12/2025 01:06

Binglebong · 15/12/2025 00:55

Sorry to backpedle but has anyone got any link ti the case discussed above, the other one with loony happenings? Thank you!

If you're talking about the Sara Morrison case (which was utterly barking) it's this one. Sorry link to thread 2 but I'm sure you'll work it out...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5444170-sara-morrison-vs-belfast-film-festival-thread-2

Sara Morrison vs Belfast Film Festival - Thread 2 | Mumsnet

Continuation of previous thread - don’t have all the details to hand to add here, so if someone can pop them on, pls do! Want to get this up quickly!

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5444170-sara-morrison-vs-belfast-film-festival-thread-2

MyAmpleSheep · 15/12/2025 01:14

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 00:40

No idea. Depends if Fife are happy with her performance so far.

Show quote history

I realize that’s the criterion but was curious as to your assessment.

if you were NHSFife would you be happy?

Plus, she’s a silk now, so much more expensive. (Although, I don’t get the idea NHSFife cares much for economy).

WellOrganisedWoman · 15/12/2025 01:48

Goblin song 😂

Like this perhaps

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.

https://youtu.be/3b7EqQKAfIU?si=z2GCTvHMjmh3jlOh

Ereshkigalangcleg · 15/12/2025 01:55

MyAmpleSheep · 15/12/2025 01:14

I realize that’s the criterion but was curious as to your assessment.

if you were NHSFife would you be happy?

Plus, she’s a silk now, so much more expensive. (Although, I don’t get the idea NHSFife cares much for economy).

Edited

Show quote history

The other side have a silk too now though.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 03:42

From my recall Naomi was asking questions of the witnesses that suggested she didn’t think disclosure was in fact complete.

NC asked Searle questions about the origins of some emails she saw. NC suggested they were hiding emails. Searle said - you can’t prove it.

So I’d be asking for forensic disclosure - Microsoft Enterprise holds everything for two years including stuff you think you deleted.

Id also be after Uptons fantasy phone - to prove he was a stalker who took notes on women and edited them to stitch them up.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5378463-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-38?reply=145888618&utm_campaign=reply&utm_medium=share

Page 9 | NHS Fife tries to silence nurse - Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton - thread #38 | Mumsnet

Sandie Peggie, a nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy (VH), has brought claims in the employment tribunal against her employer; Fife Health Board (...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5378463-nhs-fife-tries-to-silence-nurse-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-thread-38?reply=145888618

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 03:50

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 03:42

From my recall Naomi was asking questions of the witnesses that suggested she didn’t think disclosure was in fact complete.

NC asked Searle questions about the origins of some emails she saw. NC suggested they were hiding emails. Searle said - you can’t prove it.

So I’d be asking for forensic disclosure - Microsoft Enterprise holds everything for two years including stuff you think you deleted.

Id also be after Uptons fantasy phone - to prove he was a stalker who took notes on women and edited them to stitch them up.

I realise this is projection - so likely it’s not best for the case to be re-heard. I just want Searle to come back and for NC to repeat the original sequence of questions and say, you advised me that I can’t prove it. In fact I can and have proven it…. Turn to bundle page XYZ.

Firefumes · 15/12/2025 04:02

So, how much do you think
the legal fees have cost both parties so far?

EweProfessorSurnameDoctorProfessor · 15/12/2025 04:17

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 00:18

I know you said previously that if it was appealed, they couldn’t challenge finding of facts eg that Upton was a credible witness, Peggie was found to have referred to Bryson in prison etc.

If it’s re-heard, would everything once again be up for grabs to be determined?

GallantKumquat · 15/12/2025 04:20

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 03:42

From my recall Naomi was asking questions of the witnesses that suggested she didn’t think disclosure was in fact complete.

NC asked Searle questions about the origins of some emails she saw. NC suggested they were hiding emails. Searle said - you can’t prove it.

So I’d be asking for forensic disclosure - Microsoft Enterprise holds everything for two years including stuff you think you deleted.

Id also be after Uptons fantasy phone - to prove he was a stalker who took notes on women and edited them to stitch them up.

So I’d be asking for forensic disclosure - Microsoft Enterprise holds everything for two years including stuff you think you deleted.

Hopefully the appeal tribunal fast-tracks this ⌚

GallantKumquat · 15/12/2025 04:30

nicepotoftea · 14/12/2025 15:18

You would also have to assume that they fed him all the incorrect references and data, and that he is so unsuited to his role as a judge that he didn't check the sources.

Show quote history

In any case the judgement shows clear signs of the judge having a mass of material, from where it's open to question, over which he had insufficient mastery and struggled to give shape and make coherent.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 05:06

Firefumes · 15/12/2025 04:02

So, how much do you think
the legal fees have cost both parties so far?

Courier or Herald have reported Fifes fees are £400,000. About £200k to Jane Russell KC and £120k to Central Legal Office amongst other things.

Peggies will be there or there abouts.

£800,000 and counting. All because Fife wanted to allow a man who had changed only his name into the women’s changing rooms.

And still not a whiff of justice or fairness for Sandie.

How would any unfunded woman get justice?

ArabellaSaurus · 15/12/2025 06:51

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 00:01

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.

Show quote history

There is no way on the green earth anyone could accept the ET's 'findings of fact', given how they have mangled and mashed and fabricated/hallucinated quotes.

And credibility assessment was equally utterly and obviously nonsensical.

It has to go back, then.

Gettingmadderallthetime · 15/12/2025 06:59

GallantKumquat · 15/12/2025 04:20

So I’d be asking for forensic disclosure - Microsoft Enterprise holds everything for two years including stuff you think you deleted.

Hopefully the appeal tribunal fast-tracks this ⌚

Edited

Show quote history

Wouldn't this be better coming out of the cases against Searle at al?
I am hoping that these extra cases against senior managers and the union and (I think) Fife re. the disclosure about the Friday press release are forensic about behaviour
Having another do-over at tribunal level 're original case may settle nothing.
An appeal will set precedent in law so I hope that it can be allowed notwithstanding the major mess of this ET judgement.

AreYouSureAskedNaomi · 15/12/2025 07:37

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 03:42

From my recall Naomi was asking questions of the witnesses that suggested she didn’t think disclosure was in fact complete.

NC asked Searle questions about the origins of some emails she saw. NC suggested they were hiding emails. Searle said - you can’t prove it.

So I’d be asking for forensic disclosure - Microsoft Enterprise holds everything for two years including stuff you think you deleted.

Id also be after Uptons fantasy phone - to prove he was a stalker who took notes on women and edited them to stitch them up.

Yes my memory is that disclosure hadn't been complete.

I am baffled that a respondent could keep on ignoring disclosure orders without consequence. NHSF were clearly hiding something and stalling to increase Sandie's costs, but the panel drew no negative conclusions from that.

It makes me wonder what NHSF would have to have done for the judge to reprimand them in respect of lack of disclosure. Do any of the legal minds here know if there are objective guidelines re what warrants a reprimand? Or is it all a matter of the panel's opinion?

weegielass · 15/12/2025 07:53

I know someone who has been a lay member on the EAT for nearly 30 years and is a TU official. I have yet to see this person on an EAT to do with gender critical beliefs but would be seriously alarmed if they were as they have indicated they believe we are all nasty transphobes. I say 'they' to be non outing (not because of how they identify)

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 08:09

EweProfessorSurnameDoctorProfessor · 15/12/2025 04:17

I know you said previously that if it was appealed, they couldn’t challenge finding of facts eg that Upton was a credible witness, Peggie was found to have referred to Bryson in prison etc.

If it’s re-heard, would everything once again be up for grabs to be determined?

Show quote history

Yes it’s a do over

Flip

1 2 ··· 27 28 29 ··· 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