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 fact the EHRC has limited its guidance in this way has no impact. The important point for Employment Tribunals is that Mr Justice Swift has ruled that the Workplace Regulations must be interpreted as referring to biological sex. Whilst that is not strictly binding on ETs, contrary to what was said in FayeRC, it is highly persuasive and tribunals must follow Swift unless there is a strong, distinct reason not to. With such a simple proposition, I cannot imagine any situation where an ET could justify departing from Swift. So, unless Swift is overruled on this point by a higher court, future ETs should not attempt to slide around the Workplace Regulations or the FWS judgement in the way that has happened in both Peggie and Kelly.

Hard agree

Thanks prh47bridge, good to know

Judges should be regulating themselves, however they are not doing so.

Most will learn from the experience and do better in future. But if they continue to get things wrong, they will not be promoted. There is no automatic promotion

So a "bad" judge doesn't get promoted. Peggie was such a high profile case that Kemp's judgement was analysed so surely there must be suspicion over his previous decisions. What guard rails are there to ensure he learns? It seems none...once in place, a judge has job security (perhaps with a few appeals against him) and the only sanction is non promotion?

The financial and personal cost of an ET puts most people off appealing.

No, that is not the only sanction. A judge can be suspended or removed from office, but that is only for misconduct, not for getting the law wrong. If a judge is consistently getting the law wrong they can be provided with guidance and/or retraining. Alternatively, the types of case they are allowed to hear can be restricted.

Thanks!
Although we must have done something good if lots of people are keen to take the credit 🤣