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

I think SK said though that Dr U did my his presence in the changing room was unwanted conduct relating to sex which had the purpose or effect of creating a hostile etc environment for SP so still finding that didn’t amount to harassment is strange

I got a manicure set with metal nail file for my Christmas. nods

Thank you for your apology. We spend enough time defending attacks from TRAs that it's wearing having to defend positions from our own side. I appreciate your apology.

I understand being wary about critical/questioning posts. We have so many bad faith attacks.

But it is important to ensure our positions are as robust as possible, which means testing and trying arguments are helpful.

So, I welcome criticism. (As a general rule, any ad hommery reveals personal animus and tends to be dismissable. IME. )

(Dunno if dismissable is a word and pretty sure ad hommery isnt, fwiw.)

Dismissible is a word, just spelled with an I.

ad hommery isn't but I would like ad hominemary to be one 😉

I also welcome anyone criticising my work on toilets. I have never come across any data to show mixed sex toilets are safer than single sex toilets but happy to discuss.

We somehow see our corruption as a bit pretendy and not really mattering. We've got slowly used to it and accept it as the norm.

At some level, you view your whole govt as a bit pretendy and not really mattering, which is part of why Indyref failed. It's one thing to moan about Westminster lording it over you, quite another to give your crappy politicians the responsibility of full independence.

The key difference is that we can evidence an assertion of judicial incompetence, at the very least, because of the fake quotes.

Agree. It has very little to do with not liking the outcome, and a whole lot to do with the judgment being an entirely farcical mess.

With a judgment that appalling, false quotes an all, just being left to stand and apparently without consequences, frankly the bottom line of the judgment is the last thing to worry about.

He has had to issue 12 corrections!! It’s abundantly clear that there have been multiple issues with the judgement.

And those are only the ones he has been allowed to make. That, actually, he probably shouldn't have been allowed to make (aside from the typos etc).

In fact, he pre-emptively looked out for women who were uncomfortable. We know this because he made a note about Sandie leaving the changing room to let him finish, in case she exhibited more signs of not wanting to change in front of him in the future.

@MyAmpleSheep graciously apologised to you for your feeling that she was personally attacking you. But it's important to note that both points she made to you that you highlighted her were corrections and not criticism, and she was correct (as you conceded on one of them).

As another PP said to you - sorry I forgot the name - there is a very crucial distinction at times between single sex spaces and single sex services, and you were incorrect in conflating them in that instance. MyAmpleSheep was clearly being on the GC side by pointing that out. In fact it's very clear she (he? they? ) are GC, and I think your feeling criticised prevented you from seeing that rationally.

If we're (very bloody rightly) going to criticise Judge Kemp for the inaccuracies, we should be allowed to point out or question inaccuracies or potentially ambiguous statements regarding the law and the legal process to each other. Preferably without someone accusing us of personal attacks or being so pedantic they're dancing on the head of a pin. I'm a lawyer. The practice of law is about pedantry.

And on the note of pedantry, there's a missing word in my post above: should be "highlighted to her"!

And the complaints about Sandie’s other behaviours - staying or going out of the CR plus ‘not speaking to him and endangering a patient’ which appears to have been (ahem) misremembered by Dr U - seems to suggest a campaign against her. She seems to want Dr U out of the women’s CR. Dr. U seems to want SP out of her job.

As another PP said to you - sorry I forgot the name - there is a very crucial distinction at times between single sex spaces and single sex services, and you were incorrect in conflating them in that instance.

Me? www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5461133-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-60?reply=149458177

It’s all good, without need for more discussion. Apologies are both free, and freely given, when offence is caused.

God help anyone he treated as a psychiatry doctor....

I think he was out of his depth during the hearing. He never had a grasp of the issues and it was obvious at times he was struggling to keep up.

For example I don't think he understood why Dr Searle burst into tears, or the layers of carefully planned deceit that Upton went to in order to tamper with the phone evidence (pretend his home connection was dodgy during the meeting with the naive IT colleague, work out what dates would support his version of events, be selective with the truth with immediate colleagues and "obviously" lie in court).

Kemp is probably blinded by fundamental misogyny? He obviously rejects the gender critical position at a visceral /emotional rather than intellectual level so he has been unable to make his case using the law. Not great if you are a judge.

I keep thinking about the newspaper article where he revealed he had a long ambition to “leave his mark on employment law”.

Be careful what you wish for, Sandy!

Skid mark more like, amirite?

From @ArabellaSaurus upthread

And to me the problem there is not what some anonymous fanny on Mumnset says (me), but that our institutions have got themselves into the position where the accusation that they are corrupt - at best utterly inept and/or biased ' is plausible and seems persuasive. That is undermining the public's faith in law.

Worse still - we half fear half expect that there will be no consequences for the judge. This is very bad news for British institutions.

Yes, you! What you said was an important correction/point.

I'm glad it's all good your end, but it was a discussion on a public forum that others responded to too. In that context, IMO it's important to raise where someone is dismissing someone else's correct, um, corrections as the other person having nefarious intentions or being ridiculously pedantic. It can - and does - put new posters off from joining in or people from pointing out factual mistakes.

I'm done now though