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

Am I understanding your point correctly, in that because the panel didn’t believe that SP wasn’t referring to the IB/AG in the changing room despite in testimony saying she wasn’t ? Therefore have they reinterpreted SP previous statement submitted to mean she did mean IB/AG and the tribunal is now stating this as fact. Would this be grounds for appeal.

While I agree that there were some items where it was unclear but DU’s own evidence was that SP did not refer to Bryson by name. And it was not the first thing she said - maybe 3rd after DU refused to listen.

And since there was no local policy telling staff that men would be in the CR, how was SP to know that she wasn’t to ask him to leave?

Then DU’s own evidence was riddled with inconsistencies - “I would have been standing there” when asked about the differing accounts. To me that was a clear indication that his account was imagined and not fact due to that theoretical choice of words.

Also the entire exchange about the phone evidence and the unexplained google server meltdown that only affected DU’s phone and was inexplicable.

Kemp decided DU was reliable and made everything fit to that. Anyone else watching wasn’t seeing that… makes it chilling that he wanted the open access switched off now doesn’t it?

If Sandie referred to “men in women’s prisons” in general, that would have included Bryson by default. That doesn’t mean she was directly comparing Upton to Bryson himself, so I think the judge is overreaching.

IANAL, but my understanding of 'the claimant's pleadings' is that it is the statements submitted in advance by SP's legal team, stating the facts of the case as they assert them.

So it appears that
“C referred to the “women’s prison incident”, that is the Isla Bryson/Adam Graham case.”
is a direct quote from SP's team. In other words, it was acknowledged in advance that the reference WAS to the Bryson case.
When SP denied that in her evidence, she was contradicting what her own team had stated.

Maybe it was a mistake and shouldn't have appeared in the pleadings, but it did, and the judge reacted to the legal team saying one thing, and the claimant saying something else.

There are lots of other things to criticise the judge for - e.g. for NOT picking up on DrU's inconsistencies - but in this very specific case, there was a discrepancy between pleadings and evidence and I suppose judges notice that kind of thing, and form opinions about credibility on them.

I am not defending him or his judgement, I'm just being objective about this specific point. The judge and judgement can be criticised on so many points, and I've joined in very enthusiastically on pointing them out, but some of the things he said he either had to say cos that's the law/procedure, or because they are factual.

I think we strengthen our support for SP by staying objective when looking at the judgement in detail.

But I admit that trying to stay resolutely objective in spite of everything is a 'me thing', Libran ascendant or something🙄. It's not lack of support. I assure you.

The judgment has

C referred to the “women’s prison incident”, that is the Isla Bryson/Adam Graham case.”

Whereas it was possible looking at the quotation marks that the pleading referred to the “women’s prison incident” & Big Sond added “that is the Isla Bryson/Adam Graham case.” otherwise it would have appeared as something like “women’s prison incident, that is the Isla Bryson/Adam Graham case.”

I don’t think we have the document so we cannot confirm whether NC explicitly referred to the “Isla Bryson/Adam Graham case” or not.

Surely, Sandie was trying to explain to DU what her objection to his presence was, and chose an example to show the logical consequences of TWAW as far as female safety is concerned. She wasn’t implying DU was a rapist, but being mentioned in the same sentence as one was enough to give him a fit of the vapours. And of course engaging in a debate with him gets her accused of proselytising. Presumably Judge Kemp would not suggest just telling him to eff off or punching him in the nuts as advised by Linehan, but certainly trying to explain is pointless and potentially a trap. Giving examples of how TW access poses risk to women is always an instant trigger for the response, ‘you’re saying I’m a rapist’. They deliberately misunderstand, so there’s no point trying to argue with them.

This is directly from the PDF Page 148:
. There was an admitted fact that “C referred to the “women’s prison incident”, that is the Isla Bryson/Adam Graham case.” It is taken from the claimant’s pleadings, at paragraph 13 of the Response Table which the admitted fact cross references.
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)

Misusing quotation marks could be yet another flaw in the judgement, and the used of single quote marks for the quote-within-quote would have been useful and more correct, but it looks to me like that is a direct quote from SP's 'pleadings' which is presented as factual.
And then SP said it wasn't, in her evidence, which the judge noted.

He is still a buck-eejit and the judgement is still a mess, though!

Both things can be true though, the comment could refer to the 'women's prison incident' which is about Isla Bryson, without Sandie knowing (at the time she said it) the name or crime of the person involved. She could have just remembered that there was an incident where a man who said he was a woman was sent to a women's prison, and only later found out his name / crime.

I agree with you. Bryson's infamous photo was on every front page and was in the news more than other trans prisoners because of Sturgeon's idiocy. That doesn't mean SP knew all the details of the case, just that there had been a very high profile story recently in Scotland.

She said herself in her speech after the tribunal that she hadn't been deeply GC, at the time she was just reacting to her gut feelings about males in women's spaces.

So I think both can be true. She was referring to Bryson (ie male in a women's prison) but without necessarily knowing the awful details of his crimes. Thus she wasn't calling Upton a rapist, just an intrusive man somewhere he shouldn't be.

Everyone acknowledges that a man was in the womans changing room, but the law is focused on whether the woman hurt the mans feelings.

She entered the room potential being at risk of voyeurism and indecent exposure, he potential with his identity not being affirmed.

This is the balancing of rights the law has become.

All I remember is that this was flagged by JR at the very end. About the same time where it was observed that JR’s pleadings missed something essential. JR flagged that Bryson had been mentioned by name in the “agreed facts”? Or similar and I recall NC looking a bit pained and querying the wording. I can’t recall what either DU or SP said in evidence - did DU say on the stand that she hadn’t referred to Bryson in evidence but via Kate Searle we know he defo told her that rapists in prisons had been mentioned. Im now recalling the claim that DU was upset and had to tour the entire department in great distress - with no witnesses to this show of distress until meeting MC

This was discussed by the tribunal in July, during Searle's evidence. My bolding at end of extract.

NC - sandie said nothing about a rapist, she said situation in the prison
KS - think so that person in the prison, don't know of any other case of a TW in prison. The Bryson case was high profile, believed that's being ref'd
NC - 720 - sorry put previous qu wrongly. DU's evidence
NC - was it's like the situation in the prisons, DU own account was situation in prisons. Not about a rapist, its about a place where women can expect F only spae
JR - no it's agreed bryson was mentioned.
J - do you have uncontested facts doc? Read out details
JR - C refered to
JR - prison situation, Bryson Graham case. Agreed not disputed.
J - Do you accept
NC - I accept JR read it correctly. Must be entitled to put to KS the 2nd respondant said when he said it was like sitn in prisons, v sim to his written account.
J - asking about another witness
J - testimony, our job to assess others testimony.
NC - can deal in submissions with withdrawing agreement
J - will have to look at whether and how to do that.
NC - may be about exact interpretations, agreed facts give a gloss, don't say SP refered to rapist, only sitn and
NC - then explains it.
J - cannot take evidence on agreed fact, need a break. 10 mins
We resume:
NC - no need to apply to resile, paragraph says prison sitn, and the isla bryson case mention is explanatory. SP said I couldnt' remember name at time, but that a TW was in prison.
J - disputed he's a rapist?
NC - no but not SP may not have know was a rapist at the
JR - quote...
NC - that isn't contrary to what I said.
NC - allusion to rapist, same in datix, that's your interpretation of what DU said KS - no that's what sh esaid verbally
NC - neither you or DU had basis for saying Sandie compared DU to a rapist. The point was DU presence
was wrong in the same way a mna in F prison is wrong.
KS - no, it was a well known case, like saying DU is like a convicted rapist in a F prison
NC - saying SP said isla bryson
KS - I think we just agreed that is what she meant
J - qu was did she use the words
KS - no she didn't
KS - use the words Isla Bryson.

She was obviously hateful, as evidenced by her refusal to do as he wanted. He was obviously very sad and sincere, as evidenced by his statements to that effect.

I mean what other reasons could a man even have for being in the women's changing room?

No, it would not be grounds for appeal. The tribunal was entitled to make a finding of fact that Sandie was referring to IB/AG when she mentioned the prisons incident regardless of her testimony. And they have not re-interpreted anything. From the information available, it seems that in the pleadings Sandie's team agreed that she was referring to IB/AG.

She referred specifically to the "women's prison incident". It appears that, in pleadings, her legal team admitted that was a reference to Bryson. Whilst there is a lot wrong with this judgement, I don't see any overreach by the tribunal here.

I agree that this tribunal got it wrong. However, to say again, Upton's presence in the changing room is not a free pass to allow Sandie to say whatever she wants. Even if the tribunal had got it right and concluded that Upton should never have been there, it was still open to them to decide that Sandie's behaviour was unacceptable. Personally, I don't think she did overstep the mark, but the tribunal is entitled to disagree.

I think this is something that needs to be thrashed out. Just what is a woman entitled to say? The extent of what a woman is or is not allowed to say to a man she finds in the women’s changing room has to be really quite permissive, if you ask me. I’d really like to hear a judge opine on that.

Its similar to when MN introduced 'the rules'. We could talk about trans, but we couldn't be specific or generalise.

So in this situation, Peggie couldnt say that the man himself made her feel uncomfortable and also couldn't say, because TW have been known to rape, shes uncomfortable sharing with any TW.

I know that its about talking to him directly, but she would have been critised for saying the same thing to management.

Its also the idea that women have to be professional and think of their colleagues feelings, while the man and the policies have not thought of the womens. The policies, the man and the court all either didn't consider she would be hurt by his presence or thought she should not let him know how she feels.

The judge is taking the stance that given the policies, Upton was in right to be there, and shouldnt be critised for it. And i understand that. Im more critical of the policy and the court not to recognise that they have left women with no way to complain.

Given that we know he played fast and loose when quoting actual case law (which is public record), I'd not rely on his word about the content of the pleading (which as far as I know is not available for checking).

I understand why the judge reached this decision but I don't support it in any way shape or form because it requires everyone involved to suspend their disbelief and engage in a big fat lie.

I don't personally care if it was offensive to a predatory man to be compared to another predatory man. I think the comparison that Sandie Peggie made was wholly valid and would have been viewed as such by the overwhelming majority of people up until about 15 years ago when the trans contagion kicked off in mainly middle-class communities all across the West.

Rape is the first thing any woman thinks of when she is unlucky enough to find herself with a predatory man in an enclosed space. That is a perfectly natural thing to have been in Sandie Peggie's mind when she found herself in a changing room with a man who should not have been there in the first place.
He should have been charged with voyeurism.
Sandie Peggie was being forced to be an unwilling prop in this man's sexual fantasy and we are all pretending it didn't happen.

Voyeurism is a crime and that is what men who go into women only spaces are engaging in. It's a form of sexual assault. The only men who go into women only spaces are predators.

The law is supposed to be based on facts and reality not fantasy and fiction.

No-one can change sex in reality - it was a monumental mistake to allow fiction to become law and that needs to be repealed.

Being a fan of simple argument, a female person has an absolute right to not have to share intimate or private spaces with men, or for that matter any sodding space she seeks to claim as a group, that excludes men, for whatever reason.

Be it a bog, a changing room, a craft group, a girls night out, a book club, a whatever we want.

And as far as i am concerned a woman is perfectly entitled to say to the space invader whatever choice words she chooses to use to said man.

Including but not restricted to “you remind me of Isla Bryson”

Without having to qualify that at all.

💯

I think and have always thought that regardless of ability to “police” single sex spaces it will be a good thing to be able to put a sign up saying men including “trans women” aren’t welcome.

As @Hedgehogforshort said, Upton is a boundary violator. So it will be more acceptable to tell him to fuck off in more direct terms.

If the EAT does send it back to the ET, we'd need to stockpile popcorn for more crying, 'big girl pants' and 'she's a racist' from the witnesses.