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

If it has to go back to square one and be heard again, does that mean a precedent won't be set, as it would if it was heard by the appeals court?

I would hope that the EAT would make a decision that would mean no need to retrial. I fear appeal after appeal, and just never ending

In case this got lost in the 11 Corrections excitement, it was worse. It was Jane Russell KC who briefly got muddled and called Isla Bumba "Isla Bryson"

Would it be possible for them to do a list of Qs that the new ET has to decide, eg eliminating Banarama, meaning there are no issues of credibility between DU vs SP, because of FWS? Do they need to be called? Apart from the behaviour of NHS Fife, what ARE the issues of fact in this case?

The correction says that the second sentence in para 793 is deleted.

In fact the second sentence (citing Lee v Ashers Baking) and the entirety of the following (hallucinated) quote have been deleted.

Holy fuck

delete "male" and substitute "female"

Amazing. Tells you everything you need to know about this absurdity.

Kavanagh QC consumer here, available to sit on the panel with you!

11 correction? Well now we know where the Fife public relations team are working now

The correction also misses off the year it was sent to the parties.

I think it's too late. There is no credibility left in Scotland's Employment Tribunal service after this.

Sandy Kemp's name must be getting mentioned a lot by other judges right now. Probably with the words "Fucking" "arsehole" and "tosser" in the same sentence as his name.

Sandy Kemp in one judgement has fucked it for all the other mediocre judges who have also been cheating on their homework!

It's an early present for Ben Cooper.

If the EAT rules on questions of law before sending it back, that will set a precedent. If it does not, there will be no precedent unless and until it gets back to the EAT again.

If they've taken out the hallucinated quote, that is, in my view, overstepping the mark.

I've watched a metric fuckton of Judge Judy, so I'm in.

Has anyone yet guessed what might be missing from before "and" in (iv) below, please?

(iv) In paragraph 454 line 3 and at the end delete the quotation marks

Ben and Naomi are going to take this judgement apart at EAT word by word. I cannot see how anything other than a retrial is going to be the outcome.

Nothing is missing before the word "and". A section of paragraph 454, starting on line 3 and continuing to the end of the paragraph, was in quotation marks as if it came from Games v University of Kent. It is not a direct quote from that judgement, so the quotation remarks have been removed.

....at some point someone is going to have to prise the shovel out of his hand. What on earth is going on that this hasn't been stopped or withdrawn? Where the hell is the accountability and even basic standards?

Aha, thank you! Your explanation makes sense, though it seems a bit more than a clerical error on Kemp's part: "Oops I accidentally put quote marks around my own words . Sorry if you thought I was quoting from the judgment I cited at the start of the same sentence"

8/12/2025:
454. In Games v University of Kent UKEAT/0524/13 it was held that statistical information was not necessary: if it existed it would be “important material” but that “the evidence of the claimant and others in his group might suffice and could provide compelling evidence of disadvantage even if there are no statistics at all.”

23/12/2025:
454. In Games v University of Kent UKEAT/0524/13 it was held that statistical information was not necessary: if it existed it would be “important material” but that the evidence of the claimant and others in his group might suffice and could provide compelling evidence of disadvantage even if there are no statistics at all.

So what is it now? And how can it be relied upon if not a quote?

It is a summary of what the EAT decided in the case in question regarding statistical evidence. Summarising another judgement rather that directly quoting it is not necessarily wrong. If the summary is incorrect and this is material, it can be challenged on appeal.

This judgement has been carefully studied (forcing the ‘corrections’) but even the removal of quotation marks is a substantive change. You should be able to rely on quotes but a summary is always more vulnerable to error. A lawyer assessing points for appeal would be more likely to take quotes at face value but look carefully at whether a summary was correct. And no more time was given for appeal…

There will be a final amendment: "Ditch all and replace with 'because that is what I decided.'"

Dementia?

Covert Gender Critical operative in the guise of a TRA?

Lord knows.