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

This is the archive version of the latest Iain Machirter article: https://archive.ph/IA78l

Could the transcript of the previous hearing be put in the bundle for the new hearing?

Wouldn’t that be the current discredited panel influencing a new panel?

I was initially thinking it needed to go to appeal, but am coming round to the tribunal needing rerun. At least if that happened we shouldn’t have the ridiculous position of NHS Fife having failed to disclose so much stuff in contradiction of a court directive.

The EAT is supposed to use the transcript to make its own decision on the credibility of witnesses.

Did you omit a "not" here?

Thank you so much for sharing - I was aware of some not all

Poor Sandie.. but if it does go to re trial, Dr Upton would be able to explain his contemporaneous note taking.
Amongst other things.

The males go along a conveyor belt to be gassed (hopefully) before macerated.

I was wondering what the nightmare fuel underpinning "only the female birds will be required" would turn out to be.

Thank you, yes I'm sure that was the one. I was half following it on TT.

I read the article and voted. In my comment I disclosed my lack of lawyerliness and invited the poll runners to disregard my vote on that basis if they felt it appropriate. I also explained why I, as a layperson, had cast the vote I cast.

I encourage non-legal types to disclose their status and invite disregardance of their vote, should they choose to vote in the poll, to deter accusations of terven ballot-stuffing.

He did correct himself a few posts later.

I realised that too late. I tend to reply to posts as I see them whilst I still have the point I want to make in my mind, but that approach has its downsides.

It would be kept handy by each side in case any witnesses for the other side change their account.

Oh god, that's it - the bonkers judgment will turn out to have been written by Kemp's IDENTICAL HAND TWIN.

This hand is my hand, that hand is your hand... 😂

This quote is my quote, that quote is your quote...

MInor note: Lord Fairley is President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. That's a different court to the Employment Tribunals. The President of the ET in England and Wales is Judge Barry Clarke, and Judge Susan Walker in Scotland.

Susan Walker is the person to complain to about Judge Kemp, and it's she who has to manage issues of public confidence in her court. The EAT doesn't have jurisdiction over the ET, and Lord Fairley doesn't have any management role over Judge Kemp. What Fairley can do is hear an appeal and overrule Judge Kemp's decisions.

Here are a few examples of anti Christian bias in employment tribunals. Of course, this could also extend to anti gender critical bias.

https://christianconcern.com/news/tribunal-member-formally-rebuked-after-recusal-during-christian-teacher-case/

https://thecritic.co.uk/anti-christian-bias-is-rife-in-employment-tribunals/

https://christianconcern.com/ccpressreleases/kristie-higgs-appeal-to-proceed-judge-alone-after-unprecedented-double-recusal-for-perceived-bias-on-transgenderism-and-sex-education/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002njyw?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

Interesting Podcast from BBC Sounds on the aftermath of the judgement.

Am listening now. The opening is infuriating - they really have no understanding of what a process like this must have been like for someone in Sandie Peggie's position. The arrogance! Why should she have answered questions? She's not an elected politician, she's a private individual. Tone deaf.

But what a slip - referring to two 'senior lawyers' responses to the ruling, one of them pretty obviously Robin Moira White because his quote was reported pretty much verbatim, 'you would have thought these guys would be able to agree' 😂

This is giving me the rage. So crap, minimalising, trivialising, more lies than in the judgement. Grr

'oh it's all so unclear' - no it bloody isn't. Both sides both sides. What a waste of twenty minutes of my life. And of BBC salaries.

The opening is infuriating - they really have no understanding of what a process like this must have been like for someone in Sandie Peggie's position.

I don't know how Sandie Peggie has the strength to carry on. I feel drained just reading all these threads, and knowing that it won't be easy to prevent a man coming into a female space just because he pretends or is delusional enough to think he's a woman.

I was trying to think of how to get through to men: suppose a woman swanned into a male space, immediately accused all the men in there of voyeurism, was told to get out, so immediately cried transphobia, and then all the men were suspended from their work indefinitely. Would that make them sit up and notice?

I have talked about this whole business with my DS - he agrees with me but says that it doesn't directly affect him, so it's not something he thinks about. But he and DIL are very clear that they don't want their children taught any gender woo, born in the wrong body crap.

The one-rule-for-men bias was shown when the judge said that SP was guilty of proselytising, and he mentions that that has led to dismissal in other cases - implying that SP could have been dismissed for what she said.
1017. The claimant’s comments in our view were broadly similar to cases where proselytizing which led to dismissal was held to be lawful and not discrimination because of religion or belief

1019. In our view the claimant was seeking to persuade a colleague that her view was right, and should be followed by the second respondent, contrary to the wishes and beliefs of the second respondent, and contrary to the permission given by the first respondent. She was in effect challenging its decision directly with the person affected and doing so not with the first respondent which had made the decision. Proselytizing can be defined as 4104864/2024 Page 237 attempting to convert someone from one religion, belief, or opinion to another. It is a term normally used in the religious context, but is not confined to that context. In our view in essentials that is what the claimant sought to do.

Let's tweak that a bit:
'In our view the second respondent was seeking to persuade a colleague that their view was right, and should be followed by the claimant, contrary to the wishes and beliefs of the claimant ... In our view in essentials that is what the second respondent sought to do. '

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the goose-identifying gander.

You can do the same with
1016. The claimant said in her evidence that she had not intended to offend, but in matters of harassment both under section 26 and the first respondent’s bullying and harassment policy the focus is not on intent but on the perception of the person harassed, provided that that perception is reasonable. In our view in this particular respect it was reasonable of the second respondent to consider the comment to be harassing under the terms of the first respondent’s policy, and it was, so far as this is relevant, harassment related to gender reassignment and the second respondent’s belief about being able to live as a woman under section 26 of the Act .