Sandie Peggie vs NHS Fife Health Board and Dr Beth Upton, following Employment Tribunal judgment - thread #61

[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 #60 can be found in this thread: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 60: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5461133-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-60 16 December 2025 to 8 January 2026

The appeal deals with the quality of the judgment.

As to the quality of the judge, this is judicial misconduct and requires censure.

He used fraudulent material to support his conclusions.

He edited quotes of other judgments.

He edited massive errors by a slip rule that was intended to address typos.

This is judicial misconduct.

Gosh, they made this documentary on the Scottish courts very fast.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy05drxx2nwo

'I had never before come across a reference that was patently false, and felt that using the correction procedure for minor errors was insufficient for what appeared to have been deliberate changes, in one case inverting the meaning. A solicitor or advocate who did this could expect severe sanction; the accurate use of words is the essence of what we do, and in other walks of life this would be seen as fraud.

“I did not expect the response, blaming a ‘judicial colleague’, in ordinary language another judge, which if correct suggests evil intent on the part of that person, rather than Judge Kemp’s own admitted carelessness in failing to check the reference.'

Thank you. Good on Ewan Kennedy.

However the instant dismissal of his complaint only emphasises the contempt that the judicial system appears to have for the public and the rule of law.

Fucking liars, the lot of them. Edit - sorry, anger overtook me. They aren't all, I'm sure. But Walker is the head yin and clearly doesnt care about obvious misconduct. She represents the whole system, and it looks rotten as far as I can see.

From Scottish Legal News (daily email newsletter) this morning

Judge Kemp denies use of AI in Peggie judgment

https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/judge-kemp-denies-use-of-ai-in-peggie-judgment?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=daily_newsletter&utm_content=headline_link

“Judge Kemp, of course, acknowledges that he is ultimately responsible for the content of the judgment and he has taken steps to correct the errors promptly when he became aware of them."

<click>

“Judge Kemp, of course, acknowledges that he is ultimately responsible for the content of the judgment and he has taken steps to correct the errors promptly when he became aware of them."

<click>

“Judge Kemp, of course, acknowledges that he is ultimately responsible for the content of the judgment and he has taken steps to correct the errors promptly when he became aware of them."

<click>

and so on, seven more times.

Do we know if NHS Fife are appealing the parts that Sandie did win?

These "errors" are central to the case, some are outright fabrications and they aren't what the procedure to correct minor errors is for. It stinks to high heaven and this man who has benefited with a nice salary and lifestyle for years and delivered who knows how many judgements built on outright lies and fabrications, should not be allowed to get away with this.

They're acting as if Scottish citizens are stupid. They're very much not. In fact based on Trina Budge I'm betting the average Scottish farmer has more brains and integrity in their left fingernail than the judiciary as a whole based on this. (I'm sure there must be exceptions - would be nice if they spoke up).

That has to be my favourite 'damn you autocorrect' for a while. Appalling would have been better still...

This

I'm doing some audit-related digging into the campaigning groups lurking behind the egregious NHS policies (or the 'google and appropriate someone else's policy' approach taken by NHS Fife) and came across the following report which may be of interest to this thread:

Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service Mainstreaming Equality Report and Equality Outcomes 2023-2027 (Including Progress Report on Equality Outcomes 2019-23)

"Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion - Silver Award The SCTS received the Employers Network for Equality and Inclusion (enei) Silver Award in the 2022 Talent Inclusion and Diversity Evaluation (TIDE) benchmarking exercise. Enei is the leading employer network promoting equality and inclusion in the workplace. It seeks to influence government, business and trade unions campaigning for real practical change in equality, diversity and inclusion."

"Our efforts during the past year in several areas including Training and Development, has helped our rating rise slightly since our last submission in 2021,.."

See page 12 for full update
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/a50jncxh/mainstreaming-equality-report-and-equality-outcomes-2023-2027ba4983b543f14f5f97bd2f071b027c1e.pdf

enei has rebranded (now Onvero - a smash up of Onward and Vero (truth!)):
Sadly Onvero's resources for organisations "specifically seeking guidance in response to the Supreme Court ruling" are for members only ... https://www.onvero.org.uk/resource/hubs/lgbtq-hub/

The impact on NHS policy shows how insidious and long-lasting the effects of these partnership can be - you wouldn't think "training" of this kind would influence legal judgments but who know?

I agree, the issue of made up quotes, errors and their origin is separate from the appeal.

I hated the tone of the reply to the complaint. I'm struggling to articulate this... There was a patronising warmth to it. "Kemp is a good lad, we've all taken shortcuts here and there. Shush now dear"

I’ll go against the grain and say it’s incompetence and not misconduct. It’s terrible but doesn’t fall under the “misconduct” head of action. And the correct place to fix it is on appeal.

Alas, Judges, by design, don’t get punished for being bad at their jobs. They don’t get promotion, and if they’re really bad they get quietly retired. The concept of a strong independent Judiciary clashes with the idea that judges can be punished for bad judgements judgments (of which this one). I see the fact that Kemp gets nominally Scott-free as a price to pay for judges who in other cases feel sufficiently free to speak the law not the government line. Which is quite rare, world wide.

The initial errors may (generously) have been incompetence.

The misuse of the slip rule is abuse of process - and I agree with PP that this is a separate matter from the content and conclusions of the judgment.

Can anything be done to encourage this quiet retirement Ample? I understand that back in the day the higher ups would simply ‘starve’ the idiots and incompetents of cases. Is that likely to happen here?

I agree but I would as pp said I would expect the appeal to be dealt with first.

That’s beyond my knowledge, alas, but sounds sensible. He’s a salaried EJ, so he gets paid regardless. I’m fairly sure (admittedly only on the basis of faith in the system, which not everyone shares) the tribunal president is frankly horrified by this whole mess, and behind the scenes is not pleased with EJ Kemp. I really think those that run and take part in the tribunal system strive for and value quiet competence even where they accept differences of opinion on what the law says.

I think EJ Kemp will lie low for a year or two, and then retire quietly.

I’ll go against the grain and say it’s incompetence and not misconduct.

Law deals with words. It is not an error to use made up words for a case and claim them to be true. It is not something that can be done by mistake unless you are using activist material as your source and that is definitely not just an error!

Doesn’t this raise a whole range of alarming questions that need to be investigated? That go far beyond this case?

For instance:

To what extent are judges using AI? In what types of cases? And how? What training have they been given? Is AI being used in criminal cases? If so what constraints are being placed on this, & is its use being reviewed in any way?

Have all Kemp’s cases been reviewed to identify AI use & the accuracy of it? If not, why not, given that we know Kemp both uses AI & does so in a way that is dangerously inaccurate - presumably because of lack of training and/or understanding of its limitations and risks.

Do any judgments made by Kemp in which AI was used need to be set aside? How can we be confident of the answer to this without reviewing all of them?

Is a spot review going to look at other instances in which judges have used AI & its accuracy & the potential need to set aside judgments?

Fundamentally, how can we have any confidence in the judicial system as a those if we know that judges are using AI in ways that result in inaccuracy?

Any senior employee in a large corporation or senior civil servant will know the frantic push to get everyone using AI, often in ways that are counterproductive and unnecessary, and without adequate understanding on the part of individuals of its limitations. That this seems also to be the case in the judiciary should be something that terrifies us all.

I hear…..

Oh yes the plebs got quite animated about the AI and so on. Someone said people were Xing about it or was it Facebook, I can’t keep up. Well anyway Kemp isn’t smart enough for AI- he cribbed notes from someone else. He forwarded me the email. That should confirm that the full investigation of judicial misconduct was carried out with the integrity and diligence it deserves.

So that’s all right then.

Having given this some thought, I agree.

The following are classed as judicial misconduct:

• Bullying or harassment, for example of staff, colleagues, litigants, or legal representatives
• Using racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive language
• Loss of temper/rudeness/aggression, for example shouting
• Misusing judicial status, for example to try to influence another person or organisation for personal gain
• Misusing social media, for example posting offensive content, or content which could damage public confidence in judicial impartiality such as remarks about government policy
• Failure to report personal involvement in civil, criminal, or professional disciplinary proceedings
• Delay in issuing a judgment (The general threshold for when the time taken to complete a judgment may raise a question of misconduct is that the period since the conclusion of the hearing or trial exceeds three months. Some courts/tribunals have different target timescales)
• Delay in dealing with an application - usually considered to be a delay, without a reasonable excuse, of more than three months. The complainant must first establish that the court have processed the application and placed it before the judge.
• Falling asleep in court

The following are not classed as judicial misconduct:

• Bias in a judge’s decision-making
• A judge allowing one party to speak for longer than another
• A judge refusing to allow a witness to give evidence or admit certain documents
• A judge appearing to react more favourably to one person’s evidence than another’s
• Delay in dealing with an application where the complainant has not established whether the court have processed the application and placed it before the judge.
• A judge saying that he or she does not believe a person’s evidence, questioning a person’s credibility or criticising a person’s actions
• A judge making an error of law or procedure
• A judge expressing opinions about issues related to a case they are hearing
• The amount of costs or damages awarded by a judge
• A judge not reading documents before a hearing
• A judge refusing to transfer a case to a different judge or court
• A judge reserving a case to themselves
• A judge refusing to correspond with a party about a case

They may raise questions of competence, but they are not misconduct.

Kemp got the law wrong in my view. That is not misconduct. He has misused the slip rule. Again, that is not classed as misconduct. The hallucinated quotes are the only thing I think could be classed as misconduct. Regardless of the source, he should have checked them. But even then, I suspect this would be regarded more as a question of competence than misconduct, although I think there is an inconsistency here in that barristers using hallucinated quotes are likely to be referred to their regulator.

I don't think Kemp is the problem. I think he's a symptom of much deeper problems.

But ‘dont’t worry, another judge made up the quotes!’ doesn’t instil confidence in the judiciary.

Whatever the word is, surely a judge cannot make up quotes from multiple cases and then use them to base his judgement/s on, and then when he gets found out say 'Oh yes someone else made them up, it's fine'?

So if she’s horrified she gets to follow a process to actually address the rot in her ranks.

If as you suggests she uses tax payers money to pay him £100,000 a year for a few more years let call her actions what they are. Fraud on the public purse.

I've not seen anything to suggest they are. They don't seem to have announced an appeal.