Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #60

[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
Thread 59: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5459115-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-59 12 December 2025 to 17 December 2025

@TwoLoonsAndASprout @DrBlackbird the inf/ policy re treatment of transpeople who get dementia is interesting and sad.

I think Children of Transitioners wrote about this on their website somewhere , saying it causes a lot of distress to their dads sometimes when they are old if they get dementia if others eg NHS staff lie they are women, and esp they can get distressed about body multilation they did when younger.

And when you get old, it's not trans lobby groups supporting you and caring for you, its your family/ loved ones. It's so cruel for the NHS trans policy listed above to try and separate older transpeople from the only family/ humans who actually care for them, who offer them comfort, kindness, reassurance and love, as well as practical support- can't see the NHS stepping in to fill the gap if they want to ban those with dementia from receiving family support.

Also after the transperson dies, I read when their children report the death, sometimes NHS staff have lied and referred to eg a deceased father as a mother, causing bereaved families immense distress. It really shows just how extreme and inaccurate trans training and policies are sometimes- as the Gender Recognition Act and the Supreme Court judgement in the Freddie M case confirmed a father always remains a father, and a mother a mother, based on their sex, and the SC noted it is emotional abuse of children of transpeople to lie about it- and a parent's role as mother/ father isn't changed by gender beliefs or GRCs.

This issue and NHS trans bias and cruelty hurts so many vulnerable people, not just transpeople and women who need SS changing rooms/ wards!

Sorry but it's absolutely inconceivable that a doctor would deliberately misdiagnose a stroke to save the NHS rehab money. What possible benefit would the doctor gain from such an action? In any case they would be struck off once found out.

Shipman's behaviour was even more batshit, yet nonetheless he did what he did.

As I said, "or for some other reason". There are bad people in all walks of life. Sometimes people are incompetent, sometimes they will do things with malicious intent. Only they know why they do what they do. They are not always struck off.

Have we had this? Gethin Chamberlain is AFAIK late to the party but this is a good description of the bias in the judgment: https://x.com/newsandpics/status/2001933034824831173

It should be inconceivable that a NHS obgyn would steal two women's ovaries, be found at tribunal to have committed 24 acts of inappropriate behaviour with patients, and still be allowed to practice medicine. Yet here we are.

I disagree.
Doctors are in the profession for the money and status not by vocation.
I've come across several dodgy doctors in my life.
One recently told me I qualified for a free flu vaccine and then barely pricked my upper arm but no needle went in. I was gobsmacked but said nothing.
I imagine he gave himself or a relative the free vaccine and put it down in my name. I checked my arm at home - not even a sign of a needle prick, no bruise, no blood, no pain, no after effects of the vaccination, absolutely nothing.
I won't be going back.

Surgeons are even worse.
They're like plumbers, always looking for new business.

Ian Patterson unnecessarily removed hundreds of women's breasts to fund his desired lifestyle.

In at least some cases, Shipman's behaviour was motivated by money. Hannah Fry has a brilliant podcast called Uncharted and one of the episodes deals with how he was caught https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001qw98

@DustyWindowsills apologies for my late reply to your question posted this morning. I've had visitors all day. They are still here, so this is a quick look in until I am back reading the thread tomorrow.

@WearyAuldWumman's experiences ring so true to me. It's quite scary that it is so common. Just circumstances and names are different.
She has given great advice. The only hospital I've had consistently good care from for family is the Walton Centre in Merseyside, which is a teaching neuro hospital. The rest of them really are a lottery.
Sending all good wishes and I'll catch up soon with how you are going on.

I’ve barely ever noticed my flu jab going in and never experienced any side or after effects. However, I have never jumped to the conclusion that the doctor/nurse/pharmacist has stolen my vaccination.

I bruise very easily and I always feel the needle enter my arm and it always bleeds and there is always a pin prick. My DH has always commented on how bruised my arm is after any vaccination - lots during Covid.
Other patients in the waiting room asked to postpone their flu vaccination until the nurse was back from holiday because of how painful it is with the good doctor. I didn't ask for a vaccination in this instance and I didn't even know I was entitled to one.
Doctors scam as much as any other trade.

(

Sorry, I think that was posted by my cat.

I asked him whether he had anything else to contribute and he said he is very suspicious and distrustful of vets, but has never doubted that his injections have been delivered as they ought (well, he doesn't think they ought to be delivered at all, but that's another issue).

Meanwhile the French government is cracking down on GP fraud and saved 160 million of taxpayers' money in 2023/2024 doing so. Thousands of doctors were billing the State for multiple appointments with the same patient in a single day, others falsely claimed they had carried out procedures they had not and so on.
It's a huge issue and I doubt it's any different here.

https://www.lequotidiendumedecin.fr/sante-societe/politique-de-sante/fraudes-la-secu-ce-que-le-gouvernement-prevoit-sur-le-controle-et-les-sanctions-des-medecins

And then we wonder why doctors are so hard to get an appointment with.
They're too busy doing admin to get paid for work they haven't actually done.

Here's a lovely interview:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15400295/nurse-sacked-objecting-trans-colleague-womens-changing-room.html

Even the Mail is apologetic about Sandie’s use of male pronouns.

Even the Mail is apologetic about Sandie’s use of male pronouns.

That didn't come across to me. I thought it was a pretty fair interview.

What shocked me was reading about her Supervisor's behaviour when Sandie attended an ambulance man's funeral. I cannot honestly see how Sandie will be able to return to work with such poisonous two faced people around.

At the foot of the article

Sandie Peggie has not received any payment for this interview but asked for a donation to be made to a Scottish charity which supports survivors of rape and sexual violence.

Gethin Chamberlain's thread really is a pithy evisceration of the tribunal judgement.
Can Sandie's appeal only be argued on legal errors rather than the facts? Would appreciate lawyer answers.
I imagine that the Supreme Court judgement will feature heavily. But what about Kemp's dismissal of Borwick's evidence on - I believe - unsustainable grounds?
The judgement is, I believe, fatally and thoroughly compromised. His treatment of e.g. Currer's evidence is jaw-dropping.

I'd love to know which charity, because most, if not all, of the Scottish rape survivor charities, are ideologically captured.

Also mildly curious about who's funding Sandie's case - I think we've always assumed it's JKR, but there's no reason for her (JKR) not to be open about it.

I'd say it's Beira's Place. Definitely not a captured organisation.

It is difficult to challenge findings of fact. The higher courts will generally defer to the ET because the tribunal saw and heard the witnesses so is in the best position to judge their credibility. The EAT should only interfere with a finding of fact if it was unsupported by any evidence, or the tribunal demonstrably failed to consider relevant evidence or misunderstood evidence (e.g. the tribunal's findings re the study into offending by trans-identifying males), or where the finding is one that no reasonable tribunal could have made (the bar for which is very high - in essence, the decision has to be irrational).

A line that is often quoted is that the trial "is not a dress rehearsal. It is the first and last night of the show." It is for the trial judge (or, in this case, the tribunal) to decide what facts are relevant to the legal issues to be decided, and what those facts are. The EAT will not rehear the case and should not alter the findings of fact.

However, it is open to the EAT to decide that the tribunal was biased and send the whole thing back to be heard by a different tribunal. If that happens, the findings of fact and findings as to the credibility of the witnesses all go out of the window.

The EAT should only interfere with a finding of fact if it was unsupported by any evidence, .....

I would have thought that the judges opinion that Upton passed as a woman was not something supported by fact. However, it would now be hard to ascertain that just by asking people - the culture has been such that if you speak out and say that No, this person is a man, then a woman risks finding herself in Sandie Peggie's situation.

we've always assumed it's JKR, but there's no reason for her (JKR) not to be open about it.

It would be a distraction. Look how much of the Darlington discourse focuses on the undesirability of Christian Concern, or the frothing about JKR's (quite modest) donation to FWS having 'bought the supreme court'.

Not a charity, though - and wholly funded by JKR.