Page 31 | Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #59

nauticant · 2025-12-12T19:37:11+00:00

*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 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 [[https://x.com/tribunaltweets x.com/tribunaltweets]] and there's additional information here: [[https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005 tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-005]] and [[https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fife-health-board-and-dr-bd6 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: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards]] Thread 51: [[https://www.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 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: [[https://www.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 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: [[https://www.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 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: [[https://www.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 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: [[https://www.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 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: [[https://www.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 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: [[https://www.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?page=30&reply=149114174 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: [[https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5458443-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-58?page=37&reply=149143007 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

WearyAuldWumman · 15/12/2025 11:22

ArabellaSaurus · 15/12/2025 10:03

Going by Kemp's judgements, a judge can find whatever the fuck he/she/ze wants, regardless of precedent, higher courts, or indeed material reality.

Show quote history

I've noticed that TA's are trying to swamp FB articles with comments - but when you look at the 'likes' etc., most are supporting Sandie Peggie.

I've just seen a Daily Express article, however, where some TA's have been gloating.

In amongst the comments:

"Davie Bruce
Does anyone know the Judges preferred pronouns

Louise Smillie
Davie Bruce erse/hole ?"

MyThreeWords · 15/12/2025 11:23

Also, what is the 'legal philosophy' behind the concept of panel members? I understand what juries are for. They are there to represent the ideal of independence - protecting defendants from the crown/state by ensuring that there is a kind of externality, a nearer guarantee of imparticial judgement.

But that is not the non-judicial panel members in a tribunal bring. I gather from this thread that they are supposed to bring industry expertise - from the employers' and the employees' side. But how is the relevance of that expertise characterised?

Ultimately, the question as to whether the claimant or the respondent is vindicated is a legal one. But the presence of two panel members assessing matters alongside a judge seems to suggest the possibility of a two-against-one assessment of the merits of the case, based on 'industry experience' and requiring the legality-based assessment of the judge to be squished into line with their sense of what is right.

I know that the law often invokes notions of 'reasonableness' , and panel members' experience might be a way of informing the judge what is actually 'reasonable' in various employment situations. But surely if this was the rationale for their presence, they would - in effect - be there to provide additional evidence, rather than to actually make the decision.

What is the rationale for them actually having a vote in deciding what the law requires?

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 11:24

MyThreeWords · 15/12/2025 11:08

During several cases over the last year or so, we have all breathed sighs of relief when things come to court. Courts have seemed to be the place where performatively professed belief in the impossible have met, not only material reality but a determinative legal reality that preserves the existence of women's rights.

What is really shocking about this case is the suspicion, not only that judges and panels may be so corrupted by ideology that they will fail to perceive material and legal reality, but also (and worse) that the law may not be determinative at all - that it leaves space for perverse interpretations that begin with a desired outcome and retrofit the law.

It reminds me of when Trump first started pissing all over US governmental and political conventions. We had all naively thought that, thanks to its written constitution, the US was radically more protected from malign political actors than we are here in the UK (with our fragmented partly unwritten constitution).

But, no. The reality seems to be that we are, when it comes down to it, dependent on the scruples and integrity of individuals, operating in a system of rules that under-determine the outcomes.

What is the thinking about this, in the philosophy of law? Is there a kind of governing fiction that, ultimately, once all the relevant precedents, case law, etc are taken into account, there is a 'correct' (even uniquely correct) judgement to be made? Or does it acknowledge a residual under-determination that can only be resolved by wise-and-scrupulous/arrogant-and-partial judicial discretion?

FWIW, the Trump administration is repeatedly losing cases in court when challenged. However, there is an issue in that, unlike the UK, appointments to the Supreme Court are political and there is currently a conservative majority on the SC, many of whom seem willing to bend over backwards to allow Trump to do whatever he wants. The good news are that there are indications that some of them are starting to turn, feeling the Trump is going too far.

In terms of the law, there is always a correct interpretation of the law which is set by precedent. That doesn't mean that each case only has one correct outcome. That depends on the court's findings of fact. Once the facts are determined, there should only be one correct outcome.

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 11:30

MyThreeWords · 15/12/2025 11:23

Also, what is the 'legal philosophy' behind the concept of panel members? I understand what juries are for. They are there to represent the ideal of independence - protecting defendants from the crown/state by ensuring that there is a kind of externality, a nearer guarantee of imparticial judgement.

But that is not the non-judicial panel members in a tribunal bring. I gather from this thread that they are supposed to bring industry expertise - from the employers' and the employees' side. But how is the relevance of that expertise characterised?

Ultimately, the question as to whether the claimant or the respondent is vindicated is a legal one. But the presence of two panel members assessing matters alongside a judge seems to suggest the possibility of a two-against-one assessment of the merits of the case, based on 'industry experience' and requiring the legality-based assessment of the judge to be squished into line with their sense of what is right.

I know that the law often invokes notions of 'reasonableness' , and panel members' experience might be a way of informing the judge what is actually 'reasonable' in various employment situations. But surely if this was the rationale for their presence, they would - in effect - be there to provide additional evidence, rather than to actually make the decision.

What is the rationale for them actually having a vote in deciding what the law requires?

The idea of the lay members is to bring real world workplace experience and ensure decisions reflect practical realities and are therefore, unlike this judgement, workable. They are seen as important. The TUC, for example, strongly opposed a proposal to reduce their role when this was proposed by the Senior President for Tribunals a couple of years ago.

MaryLennoxsScowl · 15/12/2025 11:30

I’d be concerned that as the non-legal members of the panel are there to provide expertise in specific areas, someone has invited someone with ‘lived experience’ of LGBTQ+ issues to partake as an expert, hence all the appallingly biased tweaks to quotes. I’d say someone has provided these misleading quotes/points about hierarchy/tw not being a danger/other dogwhistles and the judge has been too lazy to check their accuracy before pasting them in. They weren’t in the respondents’ subs, so where did they come from? I reckon one of the panel members supplied them.

MaryLennoxsScowl · 15/12/2025 11:32

Do lawyers get a chance to vet the panel members?

BrokenSunflowers · 15/12/2025 11:33

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 11:30

The idea of the lay members is to bring real world workplace experience and ensure decisions reflect practical realities and are therefore, unlike this judgement, workable. They are seen as important. The TUC, for example, strongly opposed a proposal to reduce their role when this was proposed by the Senior President for Tribunals a couple of years ago.

Show quote history

The problem there is the TUC is a very political movement - in this case, a movement that campaigns against women’s rights. It no longer just focuses on supporting workers and is picky about which ones it does support.

MyThreeWords · 15/12/2025 11:35

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 11:30

The idea of the lay members is to bring real world workplace experience and ensure decisions reflect practical realities and are therefore, unlike this judgement, workable. They are seen as important. The TUC, for example, strongly opposed a proposal to reduce their role when this was proposed by the Senior President for Tribunals a couple of years ago.

Show quote history

But isn't that a bit strange? I mean, in criminal courts, for example, the decision as to whether or not someone has acted illegally can't take into account the 'workability' of that decision. Either they broke the law or they didn't.

BrokenSunflowers · 15/12/2025 11:36

MaryLennoxsScowl · 15/12/2025 11:32

Do lawyers get a chance to vet the panel members?

Christian concern have had to repeatedly get panel members recused from tribunal cases they have brought. In one case the judge ended up hearing a case alone. I remember Edward Lord, a well know TRA, put himself forward to be on the panel of one of the cases.

GallantKumquat · 15/12/2025 11:38

Cailleach1 · 15/12/2025 10:49

The way you put that makes it rather akin to a scenario of the Wild West. Sort of cowboy judges. Kinda rogue, and doing whatever they want. Making any sort of sh1t up. Not tethered by the law, factual accounts of other cases, or even the Supreme Court.

It is a bit of a circles of hell scenario when women looking for justice find themselves in kangaroo courts who seem to shill for creepy men, and have contempt for the equal rights of women as a discrete class of people (half the bloody human species).

Strikes me that Kemp fellow doesn’t seem to think women deserve any more respect than a broomstick with a mop on top, and a skirt tied to it. That would be a very ‘feminine’ look too. Sure, put a bit of lippy on anything, and he seems to be stating a woman is no more than that.

Show quote history

This needs to be repeated over and over. This case demonstrates that the UK is in institutional crisis - it is not (even if it turns out to fully vindicate Peggie) a case of the "the wheels of justice turn slowly, but grind exceedingly fine." No one, even quite affluent, could have possibly brought this totally mundane instance of sexual harassment against the NHS and carried it through to conclusion without enormous institutional backing. And even with that the costs to Peggie have been staggering.

It shows that sex based rights had been lost, in practice, within a tangle of bureaucracy. How many instances of injustices were there? 10s? 100s? 1000s? The only reason Peggie herself was referred to SexMatters and came to Naomi's attention was dumb luck - her local union wouldn't support her and a local politician happen to sit on the on the Board of SexMatters. The implications go beyond GC issues and are stark.

ContentedAlpaca · 15/12/2025 11:39

MaryLennoxsScowl · 15/12/2025 11:30

I’d be concerned that as the non-legal members of the panel are there to provide expertise in specific areas, someone has invited someone with ‘lived experience’ of LGBTQ+ issues to partake as an expert, hence all the appallingly biased tweaks to quotes. I’d say someone has provided these misleading quotes/points about hierarchy/tw not being a danger/other dogwhistles and the judge has been too lazy to check their accuracy before pasting them in. They weren’t in the respondents’ subs, so where did they come from? I reckon one of the panel members supplied them.

Maybe I've misunderstood but after you saying the study that the tables were in, comparing TW to men and TW to women were not provided as evidence?

I understand why the judge would/could not click on hyperlinks in mf's evidence, but why is it more ok to go off and find your own studies to misquote than to find the actual data that is behind mf's evidence?

Majorconcern · 15/12/2025 11:43

MyThreeWords · 15/12/2025 11:23

Also, what is the 'legal philosophy' behind the concept of panel members? I understand what juries are for. They are there to represent the ideal of independence - protecting defendants from the crown/state by ensuring that there is a kind of externality, a nearer guarantee of imparticial judgement.

But that is not the non-judicial panel members in a tribunal bring. I gather from this thread that they are supposed to bring industry expertise - from the employers' and the employees' side. But how is the relevance of that expertise characterised?

Ultimately, the question as to whether the claimant or the respondent is vindicated is a legal one. But the presence of two panel members assessing matters alongside a judge seems to suggest the possibility of a two-against-one assessment of the merits of the case, based on 'industry experience' and requiring the legality-based assessment of the judge to be squished into line with their sense of what is right.

I know that the law often invokes notions of 'reasonableness' , and panel members' experience might be a way of informing the judge what is actually 'reasonable' in various employment situations. But surely if this was the rationale for their presence, they would - in effect - be there to provide additional evidence, rather than to actually make the decision.

What is the rationale for them actually having a vote in deciding what the law requires?

Ive been told that judges hate having to decide when people are lying and always prefer either a) to pass the buck to laymen, assessors or juries, who don't get to decide on the law. or b) if they sit alone, find a legal conclusion which mean they can avoid having to do it. So in a civil case before a High Court judge, if there's a legal dispute, the lawyer who can choose the argument that spares the judge making a credibility finding is likely to win

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 11:44

MaryLennoxsScowl · 15/12/2025 11:30

I’d be concerned that as the non-legal members of the panel are there to provide expertise in specific areas, someone has invited someone with ‘lived experience’ of LGBTQ+ issues to partake as an expert, hence all the appallingly biased tweaks to quotes. I’d say someone has provided these misleading quotes/points about hierarchy/tw not being a danger/other dogwhistles and the judge has been too lazy to check their accuracy before pasting them in. They weren’t in the respondents’ subs, so where did they come from? I reckon one of the panel members supplied them.

I am with you on looking to the panel members.

Three people agreed to publish the judgement. Kemp was responsible for getting the rest right - but majority decision on all the other findings.

Trans nieces galore Id say.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 11:46

ContentedAlpaca · 15/12/2025 11:39

Maybe I've misunderstood but after you saying the study that the tables were in, comparing TW to men and TW to women were not provided as evidence?

I understand why the judge would/could not click on hyperlinks in mf's evidence, but why is it more ok to go off and find your own studies to misquote than to find the actual data that is behind mf's evidence?

Show quote history

The Swedish study was in evidence from Sex Matters, Maya Fortstater.

The other fudged case quotes could have been supplied by panel members is what the other poster was suggesting.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 11:47

MaryLennoxsScowl · 15/12/2025 11:32

Do lawyers get a chance to vet the panel members?

No and the fact first names are hidden makes it more difficult to assess.

Dodgy prices, more easily accessible in other places.

MaryLennoxsScowl · 15/12/2025 11:49

I wonder if a journalist rang up the tribunal admin people and asked who they were, would they be told? I assume they were visible in the courtroom so it can’t be a total secret?

IHaveSomeUnpopularOpinions · 15/12/2025 11:50

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/should-judge-alexander-kemp-be-investigated-over-peggie-judgment

survey (targetting lawyers, but open to all - it's a google form, with a not-shared id, a boolean yes/no should he be investigated, and the option to leave a "civil" comment) and a little discussion about what could happen, including:

"So far, the Judicial Office, a branch of the UK civil service which supports non-devolved tribunals across the UK and whose task it is to “maintain confidence in the rule of law” (not to be confused with the Judicial Office for Scotland), has issued one certificate of correction to address the “clerical error”. It is not clear whether another such certificate will be issued to deal with the subsequent “clerical errors” found after the first was issued. "

"Complaints about judicial decisions do not come within the scope of the complaints policy, yet it is not clear how the novel allegation that AI may have been used in the preparation of a judgment fits into the policy – making this case a test of its scope."

Totallygripped · 15/12/2025 11:56

I have not looked into the BMA "scientifically illiterate" response to the SC judgment. But in light of all the outraged guff about observed/assigned at birth what would be an acceptable solution? Just "human baby"? And until what point?

SionnachRuadh · 15/12/2025 11:58

BrokenSunflowers · 15/12/2025 11:33

The problem there is the TUC is a very political movement - in this case, a movement that campaigns against women’s rights. It no longer just focuses on supporting workers and is picky about which ones it does support.

Show quote history

What should be a mitigation against that is having an independent recruitment process for lay members. There was a big stink in NI years ago because the unions (well ok, mostly Kevin Doherty) thought they had a right to directly nominate the employee members, and the then Minister took the opposite view.

So an employee member might be coming from a captured union, with associated baggage, but they're there for their skills and experience in workplace relations, they aren't there as delegates of Unison or whoever.

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 11:58

MyThreeWords · 15/12/2025 11:35

But isn't that a bit strange? I mean, in criminal courts, for example, the decision as to whether or not someone has acted illegally can't take into account the 'workability' of that decision. Either they broke the law or they didn't.

Show quote history

That is the difference between criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is absolute. Civil law, and particularly employment law, is often about what is reasonable and workable.

Majorconcern · 15/12/2025 11:59

IHaveSomeUnpopularOpinions · 15/12/2025 11:50

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/should-judge-alexander-kemp-be-investigated-over-peggie-judgment

survey (targetting lawyers, but open to all - it's a google form, with a not-shared id, a boolean yes/no should he be investigated, and the option to leave a "civil" comment) and a little discussion about what could happen, including:

"So far, the Judicial Office, a branch of the UK civil service which supports non-devolved tribunals across the UK and whose task it is to “maintain confidence in the rule of law” (not to be confused with the Judicial Office for Scotland), has issued one certificate of correction to address the “clerical error”. It is not clear whether another such certificate will be issued to deal with the subsequent “clerical errors” found after the first was issued. "

"Complaints about judicial decisions do not come within the scope of the complaints policy, yet it is not clear how the novel allegation that AI may have been used in the preparation of a judgment fits into the policy – making this case a test of its scope."

Edited

I've just participated in that survey and left a comment - it didn't seem to matter who I am!

prh47bridge · 15/12/2025 12:01

ContentedAlpaca · 15/12/2025 11:39

Maybe I've misunderstood but after you saying the study that the tables were in, comparing TW to men and TW to women were not provided as evidence?

I understand why the judge would/could not click on hyperlinks in mf's evidence, but why is it more ok to go off and find your own studies to misquote than to find the actual data that is behind mf's evidence?

Show quote history

The study with the tables was provided as evidence. The tribunal used the table comparing offending rates of trans identifying men with men to argue that TIMs are no more a threat than women, ignoring the table that shows TIMs are far more likely to commit violent offences than women. This was either a failure to read and understand the evidence or a deliberate distortion of the evidence.

MetaCertificateAnnotationsJudgmentFINAL · 15/12/2025 12:01

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

This is where the next line of enquiry needs to go

BettyBooper · 15/12/2025 12:07

MaryLennoxsScowl · 15/12/2025 11:49

I wonder if a journalist rang up the tribunal admin people and asked who they were, would they be told? I assume they were visible in the courtroom so it can’t be a total secret?

Well, yes.

It is surely in the public interest to have this information. The fact the we still don't know stinks, IMHO.

QuetzalTerfLus · 15/12/2025 12:10

Are “we” (this board) being deliberately kept out of Trending? I noticed that this thread wasn’t in Trending so did a very brief analysis of the timing of the last 10 posts here compared to a random middle of the list post on Trending. This has more recent posts. I am not sure how it’s calculated and maybe I have it wrong - I hope so. Or maybe i missed news of a Trending ban?