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

It would be naive to think they are the only ones trying to subvert the law.

I don't think this would stop him being described as a 'judicial colleague' for those who wanted to justify the advice obtained / used.

We know of many 'activist legal people' who get the law wrong consistently [on purpose]...could be any of them. But surely it is on Judge Kemp to cross check this?

But this wasn't just wrong analysis - it was completely made up quotes.

Yes - at best it suggests that the misuse of AI is widespread!

I would agree except that I find it difficult to believe an ex High Court Master would provide hallucinated AI quotes that are so demonstrably wrong. And in such a high profile case which they know will be gone over with a fine toothed comb. I know there have been reports in the legal press of inexperienced junior lawyers trying to get away with it but this smacks to me of someone without legal training.

Colleagues have helpfully explained that it would have been totally inappropriate for the panel to do their own research, for example by following up the references in Sex Matters submissions, because it is vital that decisions are based on material heard in the tribunal only. But Kemp decided it was okay to do the judicial equivalent of 'phone a friend'? And this isn't misconduct!?

Quite. If Kemp had relied on AI, then he would have been guilty of laziness. But now we're told he relied on a colleague (who presumably had nothing to do with the case) and the colleague supplied him with false quotes which Kemp didn't check. So again, he's guilty of laziness, but now we also have a colleague who has either deliberately made up quotes or has also relied on AI.

In other words, we now have two incompetent (at best) or malicious (at worst) judges, instead of one.

Can we assume someone somewhere has made complaints about Kemp? It surely is clear he's made a hash of it?

It is perfectly fine for judges to consult with other judges on knotty legal problems. It happens every lunchtime in every judicial dining room. The difference is that when you sign you name to something, you take full responsibility for it.

To clarify, Kemp and the panel members had to decide the case based purely on the evidence presented. They could not do their own research on the matters raised in evidence, e.g. as to who did what when, and whether TIMs are a threat to biological women. However, Kemp was entitled to seek advice from judicial colleagues regarding the law and also on questions of procedure. That is not classed as misconduct as it is about the law, which is (or should be) independent of the evidence.

The excerpt quoted by @MeltedSunshine apparently comes from the response to a complaint raised by the tweeter in question (Eòghann MacUalraig, who is a lawyer).

Any do they regularly use made up quotes which will subvert the ruling of the person inquiring?

In my statutory regulated profession, we are responsible for all evidence we include or cite in a report. We could use AI, consultation with colleagues, or divine intervention to seek references for relevant research and evidence. What we then have to do is read and critically evaluate each source of evidence to determine its relevance and credibility. We should not include or even draw upon low quality sources- let alone made up ones.

I don’t work in the legal profession but I expect similar standards are mandated. It’s very difficult to believe that Kemps inclusion of false/fake citations meet the standards required.

Apologies, I know this will have been addressed previously but I can’t recall the answer!
Could legal folk do me a flow chart type answer to what happens next. Obviously appeal request needs to be submitted but what are they requesting?

Can they only request an appeal against this judgement (I use the term loosely) or can they ask the judgement to be set aside and complete rehearing?

If Ben et al can only ask for an appeal where does the rehearing generate from?

Finally, am sure I remember another route which included some sort of restating of law and then appeal within that context (am not explaining that final point very well, sorry)

There is a critical difference between the Darlington Nurses successful court case and Sandie Peggie's unsuccessful one: class.

The predatory man in the Darlington nurses' changing room was a nurse.
The predatory man in Sandie Peggie's case was a doctor.

Trans ideology started with upper-class men who have been invading single sex spaces for nearly 80 years now and who got away with it because they are posh blokes. The judiciary is full of posh blokes and women who pander to posh blokes.

The push-back started when the local bin-man declared himself to be a woman and insisted on using the ladies. Then everyone could see what was really going on - men with a fetish chasing a boner.

Perhaps the response is just narrowly addressing the question 'Did Judge Kemp use generative AI in drafting the judgement' to avoid addressing the bigger problem, which is not that AI is bad, but that the information wasn't checked, and the 'judicial colleague' either misused AI or deliberately misled Judge Kemp.

Difficult to know without the full complaint and response.

What questions would Kemp be asking of a 'judicial colleague' that was not only wrong but so partisan? 'I want to stitch this uppity nurse up. Can you help?'.

Sandie's legal team will apply for permission to appeal. Assuming permission is granted, they will argue that the tribunal got the law wrong and possibly that the tribunal was biased. The EAT can order a rehearing if they find the tribunal was biased, or they can simply correct the legal errors and decide the case on the tribunal's findings of fact. The only way the law will be restated in a way that sets the context for this appeal is if the EAT or a higher court rules on this law in another case.

Kemp found a posh man in a frock looking for a cheap thrill in the nurses' changing room "credible" but completely dismissed the rights of a working-class woman with 30 years of service in the NHS who wanted to change out of blood-soaked clothing without a peeping Tom looking on.
He is a disgrace.

So it wasn't AI, it was 'a judicial colleague'. The colleague may have been judicial, but certainly not judicious.

I wonder will Judge Kemp be popping around to have 'a little bit of a chat' with this colleague. Unaccompanied by a group of heavies with baseball bats, of course, obviously judges don't settle differences like that😏

The problem is that most judges come from the same social stratum, so when they confer with one another there is a shared class bias that favours men like Upton while eradicating the rights of women like Sandie Peggie.

This in it's entirety. An absolute disgrace.

They also think women are so lowly and worthless that it must be incredibly humiliating for any man to want to identify as one of us. So such men must be considered with utmost sympathy. (Of course many such men also think it is humiliating which they find arousing).