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

As long as NHS Fife's interests and arguments align with Upton's it will make little, if any, difference to their costs if they continue to mount a joint defence. It saves him money (assuming he wants to defend himself), but it doesn't necessarily add to their costs. Of course, if their interests and arguments no longer align with Upton's, that would be a different situation.

I would love to see what the foot-in-mouth email group is muttering to each other in the consultant office now that Upton is gone. I'd also like to see a trans identifying male consultant move into their shared office, just to help them clarify the situation that didn't affect them personally last time.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he never engaged with it again. It's quite common in FtP cases that individuals ignore all communications and the other party just has to ensure they go through all due processes at their end before they can move forward without giving further consideration to them.

It would presumably make an appeal process much smoother if the first tier tribunal turns out to be the only party that currently backs R2.

Does Dr.U have any basis for claim, separate or otherwise against Fife for wrongly advising/agreeing/defending his assumed rights to female designate spaces or a perceived constructive dismissal for an untenable/unworkable fallout situation? If I remember correctly didn’t Dr Searle ‘embellish’ and escalate his original complaint from his demanding an apology and acceptance of his perceived rights to a full scale disciplinary? Also have Fife paid him off in some way and if so would it be public?

If Upton is going to make a claim against Fife, he has to identify in law what duty they owe him, how they failed in that duty, and how he was damaged by it (in a way that can be repaired by money).

I don't think there's a duty on an employer to talk an employee out of making a complaint against another employee that they want to make; rather, the opposite. It would be fanciful for Upton to say "you shouldn't have let me use the bathroom I wanted to use, you shouldn't have let me make that complaint, look what a fine mess you got me into." (Although I would so dearly love to read the statement of claim, if he did.)

I'm fairly (but not completely) sure that no ET will award damages to SP directly against DU in a way that he would have to pay himself instead of NHSFife covering it.

An FOI request might reveal if there was a settlement with Upton.

Upton would be out of time for bringing a case to the Employment Tribunal. Claims need to be made within three months of the incident.

Depending on what the claim was, it might be a claim in the County Court instead. Would he say it was a breach of an implied duty of care (where's a lawyer when you need one) in his contract? That would put it back at the ET, but he might be able to argue that the breach didn't become apparent until the final ET hearing, so he should have three months from the conclusion of any appeal. I'm making this up, really. How do I sound - convincing?

Mmmm. Upton would also need some funds to pursue a case & his previous crowd funder was pretty pathetic.

It appears that Mr Upton has emigrated to Australia where trans-mania is in full swing at the moment - worse even as self-id is law there.

Has his emigration been confirmed? Last I heard it was no more than supposition, but I may not be up to date.

This development makes the possibility of a rehearing instead of an appeal even more intriguing, for example if Upton decided to no longer engage with the ET process.

@nauticant I had the same thought.

i do wonder if they order a rehearing if they can expand it to bring in the claims against Kate Searle etc. My logic is it’s all connected and one big ET might be easier. Many of the witnesses are the same for both cases.

Unfortunately I think Upton will refuse to participate in any rehearing claiming Mental Elf issues.

I hope he’s not at Sal Grover’s A&E

It was reported in several news outlets including the Sun apparently based on hearsay from former colleagues. I imagine he will keeping a very low profile going forward after the media circus he initiated.

Is that possible? Can you refuse to attend a tribunal, when you are well enough to work? He is a defendant after all. How would it go down with his new employer? "I have an court case pending where I'm accused of harassing a female colleague but I refuse to attend so it's okay"

Yes, he can refuse to attend in person but, assuming he wants to defend himself, he will need to send legal representation. He can still give evidence by way of witness statements, but the court will give them less weight than if he had been available for cross examination. If Sandie's team or NHS Fife want him to attend, they can ask the tribunal to order him to do so. If he has left the country, it may be possible for him to attend remotely via video link.

If he has left the country then he cannot be ordered to attend remotely via video link.

But of course if he were to attend via video link, his internet connection would be unstable and keep dropping out at all the vital points. Not to be trusted.

Prediction: a new hearing will be ordered, and neither NHSFife nor DU will offer any evidence -
NHSFife because of the recent HC decision, and DU because he’s left the country, changed his name (and species, he’s now a frog in Patagonia).

The hearing will be over in a day with judgment for the claimant.

If he is attending via video link, I want a front row seat to see the look on the panel's faces when the screen freezes at strategic moments. It would be a beautiful form of justice for Mr Borwick for us all to see history repeat itself live in court.

Agreed. Should have made it clear that this is an alternative if he chooses to attend. If he has left the country he cannot be ordered to attend the tribunal.

That would be so heart-rending. What kind of mean girl would one have to be to object to sharing a changing room with an endangered species?

It would also be a great way for the Good Grift Project to pivot to a new cause. #ProtectTheFrogs

If there is a new tribunal, do they have to start again from scratch or can they use evidence from the previous tribunal?

You never know. He might be part of the international frog assassin brigade, who apparently murdered Alexei Navalny with their deadly poisonous secretions.

<narrows eyes suspiciously>