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

Great news

Well this could get interesting.

And certainly could set more than one precedent - including about the outsourcing by a judge and the poor use of AI.

It'll be fascinating to see that dog's breakfast of a judgment exposed and analysed in open court.

@nauticant you're going to be very busy!

The AI (not Amnesty International) assessment of an EAT proceeding on 13 counts, let me say that again 13 counts, is pretty damning. It implies arguable errors of law or perversity across a vast range of the original Tribunal's findings and that fundamental, systemic errors may have infected multiple aspects of the case.

The legal risks are huge 😬. Maybe NHS Fife will try to settle but I’m not sure Sandie and her team would be up for that

@ProfDrLapwing Are the particulars of the claim available

Also reported by the Beeb

Sandie Peggie's employment tribunal appeal to go ahead next year - BBC News https://share.google/hURzVHA3tarFmdSNM

The legal landscape has changed a fair bit since then, so it's encouraging that he's kept up with this!

Apologies if this was covered months back but what qualifies someone to be a "judicial colleague" to an ET judge? Would that have to have been a fellow judge, or are others (eg, other lawyers, ET lay members) included?

Excellent news on the acceptance of so very many grounds for appeal. Well done Sandie & team!!

Not that I know of. That was just me querying the sheer number of points of appeal. IANAL but given that Sandie won on some points, for the remainder of the judgement to have 13 grounds for appeal seemed staggering.

A judicial colleague would be a fellow member of the judiciary, i.e. another judge.

To be fair, there were several revisions of the judgment and the BBC article states that the appeal covers all the versions. 😄

No way will Sandie or her team be up for settling out of court.

They want a court judgement so it becomes common law and sets a precedent going forward.
Her amazing backer isn't just spending mega bucks for Sandie she's doing it for all women and girls going forward.

Every woman in the UK should be grateful to her backer.

Really good news for Sandie.

Does anyone know if we have dates for the new ET against the cabal of five? It is quite unusual to specifically name employees as respondents but in this case their conduct was appalling.

It;s good to see that she is still pursuing action agaisnt Upton, but does the fact that he's in Australia mean that no effective action can be taken against him?

Or does it mean, assuming that he doesn't bother to return to the UK, that Sandie's lawyers present their case, and his goes unspoken?

I wonder if the Consultants who bent over backwards to accommodate him are now rueing the day?

not sure how they can pursue the case against DU if he's abroad? how can any judgement be implemented?
Also when can we see her horrible colleagues in tribunal again? I'd really like to see Sandie get justice for how they treated her.

Will the appeal just consider the relevant points of law, or will it cover things like use of AI in the judgement?

Sandie Peggie’s appeal against tribunal ruling to be heard next year

https://www.thetimes.com/article/78e5d452-194b-45d6-9843-83e50992b4aa?shareToken=8441d48407c213e1fc538dd3f59b497d

Not read it yet but just arrived in The Times.

If he continues to share representation with NHS Fife, they will present his case. An appeal does not rehear the case, so he won't be required to give evidence at this stage. Even if the EAT sends the case back to ET to be reheard he doesn't have to give evidence, although it will clearly weaken both his and NHS Fife's position if he doesn't.

If he loses, the court will award damages against him. If SP wants to pursue this, damages awarded by a UK court can usually be enforced in Australia without any need to relitigate the case.

That was my first thought!!!

So does it start again from first principles on the points of law, or is part of the appeal challenging the reasoning of the previous judgment?

The judge is not going to be there to defend himself. I may be wrong, but I would expect the EAT to be focussed on the legal errors in the judgement rather than how those errors got there.

I might be being nieve but surely Upton needs defend himself. He'll be registered with the GMC, surely they'd need to share any findings with the Australian equivalent?

I'd think so too.
They'll end up being a different enquiry into the fuckups in the judgment