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

Clerks are not legally qualified and know they are barred from giving legal advice to anyone. There is no way Kemp asked an unqualified tribunal employee to write part of his judgement or took advice about the law from an unqualified employee. I am absolutely certain that the judicial colleague was not a member of the tribunal's administrative staff.

No, she cannot, and nor can anyone else. The judge has immunity.

Didn't the announcement describe correspondence with a judicial colleague - this seems to imply someone remote

Eta the quote
It is clear from my enquiries that the source of the erroneous quotes from Forstater and Ashers was an exchange of correspondence between Judge Kemp and a judicial colleague

So, they can just do whatever they like. No oversight, no comeback, no culpability. Fab.

The outcomes of this will be far downstream, I suppose. Erosion of public faith in institutions and the rule of law. Where does that lead? I guess we'll find out.

To a degree, that is always the case. The tribunal (the judge and the lay members) get together and decide the outcome. During this process, the judge advises the lay members as to the relevant law. The judge then goes away and writes the judgment. It is at this point they will quote case law to support their interpretation of the law. What we don't know is whether Kemp approached his colleague before the tribunal decided the outcome and asked for advice on the law around trans-identifying individuals and workplace toilets, or if he approached them after the outcome had been decided to ask them for help with case law that would support his interpretation of the law.

I am sure too he didn’t take advice from an unqualified tribunal employee. But that is quite different from getting someone in a supportive role who has some legal training to do some research and prep for you. That does go on.

I just wouldn’t be surprised if the colleague wasn’t another judge, my mind is open to that.

Also - the Muir quote re AI usage

Having made enquiries, I am satisfied that Judge Kemp did not use generative AI in drafting the judgment

I.e. Kemp did not use AI not AI was not used

Judicial independence is important. If we erode that, it will be easier for politicians to interfere with the courts and dismiss judges they don't like. A judge being biased or getting the law wrong is correctly dealt with on appeal. No judge likes to be overruled on appeal (especially not if it is "with the greatest respect"!), so they learn from it and try not to make the same mistake again. But it is important that mistakes of law, bias, etc. are dealt with by appeals, NOT by taking action against the judge concerned. The judge should only face sanctions for genuine misconduct, such as trying to use their position for personal gain.

As I have said before, the hallucinated quotes are the only thing here that could possibly be misconduct. Everything else people are upset about is rightly to be dealt with on appeal.

Exactly. As I said before, there is a lot in the language that leaves room for a lot of subtext. The only definite ‘fact’ given is that KP didn’t use AI directly.

But if someone else had, then technically Kemp used AI in the judgment.

What we don't know is whether Kemp approached his colleague before the tribunal decided the outcome and asked for advice on the law around trans-identifying individuals and workplace toilets, or if he approached them after the outcome had been decided to ask them for help with case law that would support his interpretation of the law.

Muir's enquiry report makes it clear that the specific correspondence has been identified - I wonder if this correspondence is something that can be accurately dated?

Its actually Watson I have in mind more than Kemp. Failing to properly investigate and deal with the complaint just makes it all a degree worse.

But anyway. I'm losing patience with the interminable twists and turns of the legal system. At base, its not fair and its not working. The very well paid and well qualified people at the top are failing, by accident or by design.

It would be just as easy to have written 'satisfied that generative AI was not used in Kemps judgment'

We won in the SC. That should be the end of it. The SNP say no. Now what?

Exactly.

And if AI was used by the colleague, then Walker’s statement that ‘Judge Kemp did not use generative AI in drafting the statement’ is wrong. If AI had been used albeit by someone else) to draft a section of the judgment, then Kemp indirectly used it.

The courts will win in the end. It may take longer than it should, but the only way politicians can overrule the courts is by changing the law, and the SNP cannot change this law.

So long as women keep pouring money into endless court cases to force the government to adhere to the law? They havent even paid the costs as ordered by courts!

At this point we have a government openly and brazenly defying rule of law.

No I haven’t! I assumed you were asking because of my username so I googled, and apparently the Ancestress is an evil figure in that book?

I used to live in China though so am interested in reading it. Do you recommend it?

She didn’t even need to do that given she states she was actually rejecting the complaint.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/foi_request_spso_complaints_inve#incoming-3158987

Not just on this either. The Scottish Information Commissioner is starting proceedings against them too. And that is before you consider things like the recycling debacle. I really wish the ministers could be held personally responsible…

Yes, she's wonderfully evil although really just a plot device not given much of a character* beyond evil. Spoiler, she gets a much deserved bad end. I loved the book, if you like stories loosely based on Chinese mythology you should try it. It's relatively short but packs a lot in.

Cracking username anyway.

*A version from her point of view, with some back story could be a good read.

Not strictly about this case but more trouble for the SNP:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/440d32ab-dfe3-485f-943e-ab8078037177?shareToken=d9dc685105f002bbae42f4eeffd716b3

Is it likely that the use of generative AI will be specifically addressed at the appeal, or do they have to stick to points of law?

Didn’t mean to quote @SlackJawedDisbeliefXY , although I do agree with the point made!

We reach as many Scottish women as we can, point out the contempt their government view them with and hope they'll choose someone else next time. Then we start trying not to think 'out of the frying pan, into the fire.'