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

On cost grounds alone it fails.

In my view that may be misconduct, but I suspect it could be difficult to prove. If it could be shown that they were responsible for the hallucinated quotes, that could be misconduct.

Isn’t this a question of who gets thrown under the bus and if so it should be a public throwing under a very large and powerful non-hybrid big six-wheeler scarlet painted omnibus?

Yes, throw them all, in public and 97 horsepower (hold very tight please!)

You mean a big six-wheeler, scarlet-painted, London Transport, diesel-engined,
97 horsepower omnibus (courtesy of Flanders and Swann)?

@RealFeminist : IF THEY'RE NEEDIN A BORRAE OF A BUS AHV GOT A CAMPER VAN THAT MIGHT DAE

Right, that's me off for a dog walk with a spring in my step & a song in my heart. 😆

I don't think it's about throwing anyone under the bus. Kemp had a job to do and that was apply the law consistently and with reference to what it actually was. He simply didn't do his job.
We can't have judges making shit up left right and centre. It completely undermines rule of law.
I imagine anyone who has Kemp as a judge in future would have reasonable call for concern whether any judgment he made was sound and based on actual law, or based on whatever colleague had an opinion on it/AI or whatever the hell happened there.

He's toast, all right, but I think they might hide him well enough and long enough for that not to be empirically verifiable

Ding ding…it should be both the Judge and his judicial colleague out in the open for scrutiny under the proverbial bus. What’s the equivalent of a Fife bus?

Watch out for Jackal Taxi Drivers!

Moffat & Williamson aka Moffie buses

Not sure if this works I'm on the wrong device for sharetokens
https://www.thetimes.com/article/abfebb53-d83d-48b8-8258-47d55750c008?shareToken

It didn't work for me, but here's an archive version: archive.ph/Rg6Uc

Thanks @NoWordForFluffy I can never get them to work on the phone.

At the end it should say "shareToken=[numbers and letters]"

You were missing the =[numbers and letters] bit.

@NoWordForFluffy has already supplied the archive version but here is also a share token

https://www.thetimes.com/article/abfebb53-d83d-48b8-8258-47d55750c008?shareToken=8924ce4392bfad9f8a67f36ce4929f6b

I know, that is how sharetoken look when I do them on my laptop but on my phone the link is always cut short after the word sharetoken. I don't know why.

I quite understand. The only way I can ever get a share token to work is to use the share button at the top of an article and share as an email link.

If I use any other type of link, or use the share button at the bottom of an article then I cannot get it to work at all.

I do the same, share button, link to email, copy&paste link. Works on computer, but not on my phone. The link worked for me when I clicked on it but I have a subscription. I hoped it would work for others too, alas.

With regards the investigation carried out into Judge Kemp's conduct,

Can the existence and findings of this enquiry form part of SP's appeal? i.e. can SP's barristers ask for the unnamed 'judicial colleague' to be named?
If it turns out this colleague has expressed pro-trans then surely this would be a strong indication of bias in judge Kemp's ruling?

The Wings over Scotland letter brings up an interesting point - the inquiry found that judge Kemp had not used AI to generate the false quotes he was simply given them by someone else.

Does this also mean that the 'judicial colleague' did not use AI?

I’m guessing not, or they would have said so. I always look for what is not said by politicians and people who might be trying to hide something. Poor Judge Kemp: can’t even work out how to use Chat GPT (possibly)

I wonder if that question (Did your 'judicial colleague' use AI to guide their comments?) could also form part of the appeal?

I think AI or not is irrelevant.

You're probably right - it speaks to misconduct by the 'judicial colleague' which is not relevant to SP

Yes, but also I am not convinced whether the fake quote being created by AI or just by typing it out makes much difference to the misconduct.