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

The basis for the corruption charge was the pattern of behaviour in cases that are of interest to the Scottish government and the fact that the most senior law officer in Scotland is chosen by the Scottish Government and sits in the Scottish cabinet.

With Kemp and his judgment, something extraordinary has happened.

We don't know what has gone on behind the scenes. But we'd be fools to think that this is within the normal range of judicial outcomes.

Lots of posters have commented along the lines of: "well, what happens in situations like this?" There's no "like this". It's unprecedented. Even seasoned lawyers are saying that it's so messed up that the appeals process will be unable to get a judgment that is soundly based in law.

This is why I think that this judgment is, in many respects, unappealable. It's so rotten that nothing good can be built from it.

Better that the system has to turn away in embarrassment and say that the only way to get justice is to build anew from solid ground. It's a message that is worth sending to captured judges: do your job properly or if you choose to not follow the law then the system will destroy your reputation.

'I commented on GC posters undermining the judiciary '

Sorry, no. The only person undermining the judiciary here is Sandy Kemp.

‘Look what those women made him do’

FWIW, my comments about corruption weren't just or necessarily specifically about Kemp.

They were considering the broader picture of issues with the Scottish Judiciary and its structure, as part of the Scottish Government.

'A politically-led prosecution service is a clear breach of the principle of the separation of powers between the ‘executive’ (the government of the day) and the ‘judiciary’ (the legal process of interpreting laws in specific instances). Charging and prosecuting people with a crime should not be carried out via a system or organisation which is led by a member of a political cabinet.
This is pretty universally understood to be a basic tenet of constitutional democracy and it is precisely what is being tested to its limits by Donald Trump in the US right now. In Scotland there has never been separation.
This was entirely illegal under European Union laws and while no-one bothered to raise a case against Scotland while we were EU members it is almost certain that an independent Scotland seeking to rejoin would be forced to split the role of Lord Advocate, which is both the primary source of legal advice to the Cabinet (entirely legitimate) and also the head of the prosecution service (which is not).
That this is constitutionally wrong hasn’t really been challenged by anyone. In Scotland the best way for the establishment to maintain dodgy practices is not to defend or make a case for them but to just not look, to pretend it’s not happening.'

https://robinmcalpine.org/scotland-has-a-problem-with-its-prosecution-service/

And also, re competency, Kemp has had a long and - as far as I can tell - perfectly respectable career as an ET judge up until this point.He's literally written a book on tribunals.

Exactly. I think there needs to be some sort of investigation.

It is not just the prosecution service - Police Scotland also act in a politically partisan manner.

The SNP have created a client state that is rotten to the core.

He's literally written a book on tribunals, that should say.

You are bang on @ArabellaSaurus

The GLP did state an intention to contest the SC judgement as soon as they could find a case that gave them standing to do so.

It is not possible to challenge an SC ruling in the British courts. They would have to apply to the ECHR.

and from legal commentary that i have read they are unlikely to succeed in an application.

I'm sure they did. But they are not, currently. They are only contesting one bit of the EHRC interim guidance. As I stated before.

Pot meet kettle. I didn't launch into you, and "attack when you get a sniff of disagreement with you" is a fair description of your own reaction to my post. Take your own advice, and read my post properly.

To me, Judge Kemp has introduced a new concept to law - it is Ok to lie to a tribunal as long as you really, really believe what you are saying is true.

To be fair, that is actually an accurate statement of the law as it has always been.

Forgive me - but isn't it only the government that can be challenged in the ECHR? And the government actually lost this case. It would have been possible for FWS to have taken the Scottish Government to the ECHR had they lost, but they didn't.

I think the GLP can ask the High Court to declare that British domestic law is incompatible with the EConventionHR, but they need to get a case there first. FWS as a legal battle itself is over.

The government could take FWS to the ECHR, but they won't do so. And the courts won't declare that the law is incompatible with the convention as the SC clearly took convention rights into account when considering FWS.

What I presume the GLP want to do is take another case through the UK courts based on the interpretation of the Equality Act, lose (or be refused permission to appeal) all the way to the Supreme Court and then appeal to the ECHR.

Unless I misunderstand - which is frequently - the government can’t challenge a private party like FWS in the ECHR. The government can only be challenged.

(why would the government need the power to challenge anyone as to the interpretation of law when it can simply rewrite the law as it sees fit?)

What I presume the GLP want to do is take another case through the UK courts based on the interpretation of the Equality Act, lose (or be refused permission to appeal) all the way to the Supreme Court and then appeal to the ECHR

They will also ask for a declaration of incompatibility on the way. Yes, they will be refused, on the grounds that the SC already covered that ground, but I think the GLP will need to argue both that a new lower court decision was wrong on the law and in the alternative that the law was correctly applied but incompatible with human rights legislation.

Either way, as a cause of action FWS is dead and GLP need to start again at the bottom to overturn it.

No, you haven't misunderstood. I missed a word. The respondent in FWS was the Scottish government, not the UK government. It may be possible for the Scottish government to find a way to take FWS to the ECHR as an action against the UK government, but I'm not certain about this.

In any case, it isn't lying if you sincerely believe it to be true. It's just being wrong.

Though whether Upton sincerely believes that he is a biological woman is an open question.

I guess my point is that Dr Uptons evidence includes things that are demonstrably false (particularly around his gender identity) and yet the judge considers his evidence to be sound.

I was thinking about that just now. Based on a study of exactly zero evidence and no reading of authorities whatsoever, I decided that it was impossible.

The Scottish Government can't argue that its own human rights had been breached because as a public body it doesn't have any, and certainly canot itself claim to be a person with a GRC now denied the right to take up a place on the bord of another public body reserved for women. It can't continue to act on behalf of such an individual GRC-holder, because in FWS there isn't one. It also doesn't have a direct interest in equality law since that is not a devolved matter. And - the Scottish government is a statutory creation of the United Kindom as a state. So, ultimately, the UK could simply abolish the Scottish Government to extinguish any action between the two.

And, now I've started to look for authorities, I find this, in Assandize v. Georgia: at 149:

The Court thus emphasises that the higher authorities of the Georgian State are strictly liable under the Convention for the conduct of their subordinates (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom , cited above, p. 64, § 159). It is only the responsibility of the Georgian State itself – not that of a domestic authority or organ – that is in issue before the Court. It is not the Court's role to deal with a multiplicity of national authorities or courts or to examine disputes between institutions or over internal politics.

I agree, with that level of “I’m a biological woman” wtfery, how can he be a reliable witness?