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

Well the President said exactly that. After a rigorous investigation across four working days between Christmas and New Year.

I think there is an inconsistency here in that barristers using hallucinated quotes are likely to be referred to their regulator.

I thought about this; but barristers and judges have different responsibilities. A barrister using a fabricated quote is misleading the court, which is misconduct. By contrast, judges are the court, and can mislead themselves as much as they like.

I would expect the Press to have tracked Kemp down and ask him who the colleague was. I thought they were supposed to be able to do that stuff (sometimes using methods the police aren’t allowed)

It's outrageous that making shit up in a judgement doesn't get you into trouble,

I've seen an email very recently from the head of a prison and a large chunk of it has been done in AI.

Does the judicial system etc have policies on AI use?

I think one of the things that has shocked me, and probably others who had very little knowledge of the Scottish legal system before this case, has been the very apparent "chumocracy" between the Government, the legal establishment, the senior people in public bodies, etc. I think purely by virtue of relative size (certainly not by virtue of, erm, virtue), the situation is not as acute in the English courts.

But then how can they do their job?

Isn’t the point of a judge that they are supposed to be competent?

You did a Kemp.

What it in fact says

"WE CAN INVESTIGATE

Any action that amounts to misconduct. Some examples include:"

https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/what_can_i_complaint_about/

So you list some examples but - but what we saw in this judgment was misconduct.

• Sharing correspondence in a matter you are alone are called to Judge.
• Cutting and pasting unverififed information.
• All the errors falling in a pro trans way?
• There is an inference of bias

It looks objectively biased and should be investigated.

Different jurisdiction I know in England and Wales

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/practice/serious-misconduct-finding-against-senior-judge/5040391.article

But updated a diary entry in outlook was misconduct.

Falsifying the words of other courts in a judgment - can only be misconduct.

But to educate myself on this matter further I'm off to read judicial conduct guide.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Guide-to-Judicial-Conduct-2023.pdf

So it says pretty much what I copied, except that it lists a few things that aren't about a judge's conduct at all and says they can't investigate them. However, let's look at the things you list:

Sharing correspondence in a matter you are alone are called to Judge.

A judge asking another judge for advice on points of law related to a case they are hearing is not misconduct. It happens a lot.

Cutting and pasting unverified information.

If you look at the list in my post, that is clearly going to be classed as a competence issue, not misconduct.

All the errors falling in a pro trans way?
There is an inference of bias

As per the list, bias in a judge's decision making is not classed as misconduct. It is a matter for appeal.

Worth a trawl through examples of judical misconduct

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20131009022240/judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web/20131009022240/judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/

Judges may be the court, but they are not the whole court. In quoting inaccurate/fabricated case law they are, as a minimum, misleading the other panel members.

As I said, the hallucinated quotes is the only point that could possibly be classed as misconduct. However, I suspect that it would be regarded as a competence issue rather than misconduct in that, having been given these quotes and references by another judge, Kemp failed to check they were genuine.

Sorry - I was hasty.

I will come back with concrete examples of similar judical misconduct and or references to Guide to Judicial Misconduct - so I am more precise in my meaning.

Great news!

I would hope that judges were able to discuss points of law with their peers. In fact I would think it should be encouraged.

Im not a lawyer but a professional in a different area and I find it absolutely crucial to be able to discuss my thinking with peers when interpreting regulations.

I don’t get to blame them if I get it wrong though. The responsibility lies entirely with me as it should with Judge Kemp. I wouldn’t consider it an adequate defence to say “well such and such said it”

Haha I didn’t even realised I’d typed that!

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Guide-to-Judicial-Conduct-2023.pdf

Pg 8 - Part 2: Guiding principles There are three basic principles guiding judicial conduct:

• Judicial independence
• Impartiality
• Integrity

Pg 9 - Integrity

In practical terms, this means that judicial office holders are expected to display: • Intellectual honesty;
• respect for the law and observance of the law;
• prudent management of financial affairs;
• diligence and care in the discharge of judicial duties; and
• discretion in personal relationships, social contacts and activities.

I would suggest that in terms of misconduct the judgment lacks intellectual honesty - given that he suggested it was a clerical error to delete an entire pargraph and substitute an entirely new paragraph. And or misuse of the slip rule was lack of diligence and care in judical duties.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/693ac29933c7ace9c4a42024/4104864.2024PeggieFifeFH11.12.25corrected.pdf

Or the further 11 other corrections

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/694ad4b272075a1d4a508a97/4104864.2024PeggieFifeFH11.12.25corrected2final.pdf

While I understand a Judge may consult with another - it was misconduct to fail to show diligence and care in Kemp's discharge of his judical duties to take the patently false quotations as truth. It was lack fo respect of the law to misquote from other judgments.

I would also infer that the judical colleague who provided the information was not a neutral observer in this matter. Perhaps misconduct in engaging with them showed lack of care in the discharge of judical duties.

I don't have a problem with engagement on issues in practical terms.

But copying and pasting false information from a third party without checking.

Why was that third party so very helpful in providing quotes? Did they approach Kemp?

Were they judging the only other sex realist employment tribunal in Scotland at the time and so had relevant knowledge?

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web//judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/documents/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://web.archive.org/web//judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/documents/

Lots of links to judical misconduct

Being a bit of a softie, I love it when posters here just come out straight and say 'sorry' - ready apologies are not exactly a feature of online debate elsewhere, are they?🙄
So I make a point of noting it when it happens

Well I am being a bit bolshie to an esteemed lawyer on here - and I have my own professional standards to adhere to - and I am questioning judicial competence so it’s the least I can do.

Ok this one is tongue in cheek... but since an email made Kemp be a liar liar biased pants on fire

Page 22 - Use of equipment

Judicial office holders should not use equipment, including IT equipment, provided by HMCTS for their official use, for other purposes which could bring them or the judiciary in general into disrepute

However, I suspect that it would be regarded as a competence issue rather than misconduct in that, having been given these quotes and references by another judge, Kemp failed to check they were genuine.

Is the "by another judge" there meant to be mitigation against misconduct? Because Kemp could have expected the other judge to be doing his job?

If that's the case, then it's the other judge who should be being investigated for misconduct, otherwise you're saying judges are free to "misconduct launder" with none of them taking responsibility.