Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #63

[nauticant]

TLDR version: Sandie Peggie vs Royal College of Nursing is currently being heard. The hearing started on Wednesday 23 September 2026 and is scheduled to end on Thursday 1 October 2026.

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 were of sexual harassment, harassment related to a protected belief, indirect discrimination and victimisation. Dr Upton claimed 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 after a prolonged process judgment was handed down on 8 December 2025. That judgment is being appealed and an appeal hearing is expected to take place in 2027.

Additional legal claims have been raised. Sandie Peggie is taking action against the Royal College of Nursing, against three senior managers who were witnesses in the employment tribunal - Dr Kate Searle, Dr Maggie Currer and Esther Davidson, against Carol Potter, the chief executive of NHS Fife, for victimisation, against NHS Fife for discrimination, and against its director of people and culture David Miller for harassment. In addition, Sandie Peggie is being investigated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council over fitness to practice.

The past proceedings were live tweeted by www.x.com/tribunaltweets. Tribunal Tweets are likely to be providing coverage in current and future proceedings. There's additional information on Tribunal Tweets' substack: tribunaltweets.substack.com/.

Links to previous threads #1 to #60 can be found in this thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5379717-sandie-peggie-list-of-threads-covering-employment-tribunal-and-afterwards

Thread 60: www.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

Thread 61: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5472628-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-61 8 January 2026 to 3 August 2026

Thread 62: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5562302-sandie-peggie-vs-nhs-fife-health-board-and-dr-beth-upton-following-employment-tribunal-judgment-thread-62 3 August 2026 to 24 September 2026

<raises an eyebrow at thread>

Continuation thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-64

Courts have a correction procedure precisely because judgments can contain mistakes.

No, the slip rule procedure (which this judgment was supposedly corrected using) is for minor admin errors / typos etc, not substantive errors such as those corrected in this judgment.

Looking at the correction certificates, most are exactly the sort of things Rule 67 contemplates and were treated as such by the court - wrong words, reversed case names, quotation marks, omissions etc.

The Forstater correction was obviously more significant because an inaccurate quotation had been attributed to the case, but even there the tribunal didn’t change the proposition it had decided or the outcome; it substituted the correct authority/quotation supporting the same proposition.

One of Sandie's grounds of appeal (which is allowed) is to do with misuse of the slip rule.

The certificates minimise the extent of the amendments to try to fit them into what is allowed by the slip rule.

No, Sandie does not necessarily need to show any evidential link between RCN's hostility to gender critical views and the decisions concerning her case. If the tribunal accepts that there is such hostility, that can be enough for them to infer that any decisions may be tainted by that hostility. The burden of proof then falls on RCN.

Re the policy, the question is whether the decision was due to her GC beliefs. Of course, if RCN can show that the same decision is made consistently in other cases where the facts are similar but GC views are not involved, that would likely be enough to show that, on the balance of probability, their actions were not unlawful discrimination. But the burden of proof is on RCN. Sandie does not have to show that her treatment was unusual, just that there is enough evidence to suggest that it was due to her GC views.

Is there an example of another case where the slip rule has been applied so many times?

Is there another case where the judgment requires two rounds of slips to try to correct it?

My understanding is that the number of slip corrections in the SP judgment stands out as highly unusual

Funny that a poster who's spent hours trying to police women's speech on here is now reframing the kemp judgment as "thoughtful.. balanced.. and true to the facts". 😂😂

And taking up endless posts on poor @nauticant's threads.

This is really very unusual. I've never even seen one before now (slip rule amended judgment) and I'm a litigation solicitor. I've had court directions orders amended using the rule before, which I think is more common (listing the trial before the directions are completed isn't helpful! 🤣).

I don’t agree. I think you’re setting the first-stage threshold far too low. “Potentially tainted by hostility” isn’t really the statutory test. General hostility to gender-critical views may be relevant evidence, but it doesn’t automatically mean that any decision involving Sandie can be treated as potentially tainted by discrimination. There still has to be enough evidence from which the tribunal could properly infer that the particular treatment complained of was because of her protected beliefs

I don't accept that objecting to online abuse is "policing women's speech". Plenty of people trying to police how I contribute to this thread, however :).

will be interesting to see what the appeal judgment says.

'Judgment', no e after the g.

Edited for illiteracy! 😬

Thanks

Yes, I'm reminded of Fat Tony larping as a proper lawyer. Quasi half arsed legal bullshit. Sounds impressive yet total bollocks.

How ironic

If you want to have a legal discussion, Clifton Diocese vs Parker (https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2026/68.html) may be helpful.

It quotes Igen Ltd (Formerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and Others v Wong

when it says (90)

Pursuant to section 63A of the 1975 Act, it is for the claimant who complains of sex discrimination to prove on the balance of probabilities facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the employer has committed an act of discrimination

If SP proves on the balance of probabilities that facts exist from which the tribunal could conclude that RCN discriminated against her on the grounds of her GC belief, the burden is shifted to the RCN to show that an adequate explanation exists.

The whole of para. 90 is worth reading, but these bits stand out

(5) It is important to note the word "could" in section 63A(2). At this stage the tribunal does not have to reach a definitive determination that such facts would lead it to the conclusion that there was an act of unlawful discrimination. At this stage a tribunal is looking at the primary facts before it to see what inferences of secondary fact could be drawn from them.
...
(10) It is then for the employer to prove that he did not commit, or as the case may be, is not to be treated as having committed, that act.
...
(13) Since the facts necessary to prove an explanation would normally be in the possession of the respondent, a tribunal would normally expect cogent evidence to discharge that burden of proof. In particular, the tribunal will need to examine carefully explanations for failure ...

It did tickle me! 🙈🤣

Nobody has objected to your choice of words, told you to be kind(er), told you that your points would be stronger if only you would damp down your language, told you you're welcome to your opinions but not in those particular terms about an individual or any such thing.

We know you don't agree. You've made lots of posts telling women to stop using words you don't like it. That's policing speech - stating that women mustn't use certain words. It's not new on here - there's a lot of people who try to police women's speech, especially when it involves accurately sexing or describing male behaviour.

What you're getting is feedback about your posts from those who disagree with you. If you don't want feedback maybe don't try to control the language women choose to use?

So here was me thinking that I could catch up on a last few posts on a Sunday afternoon to find an extraordinary amount of lengthy and provocative posts. The current discussion was/is about SP and her Union RCN, attempts to keep revisiting the previous case despite posters pointing out it’s a separate issue just clouds the RCN/SP conversations. I’ve followed this case and those similar from very first posts, reread the direct TT quotes, news etc for balance and clarity. I don’t/cant always agree but that’s what in my view discussion is for. However for the first time I’m ‘uneasy’ about the posting content today.

Nah. Saying I think calling someone names like " a pig" and a "narcissist" is online bulltibg and unacceptable is not “policing women’s speech". I haven’t said anyone mustn’t use particular words; I’ve criticised the way those words are being used about a real, identifiable person. Feminism isn’t a free pass to abuse other people.

If you are unable to recognize your own tone policing, here it is, specifically

I don't think .... is acceptable. ...
.... I don't think that is behaviour worthy of respect in a civil discussion, and I don't think it should be tolerated on mumsnet.
I think it should be possible to discuss ... without ....

This is you trying to impose your own standards on others.

Stick to your own opinions, and leave others to express theirs how they wish.

If you don't think Upton is a sexist pig and a narcisist, feel free to say so: "I don't think Upton is a sexist pig, or a narcisist."

Telling other people that you consider their terms unacceptable is the very definition of tone policing. So, also, by the way, is you telling others what feminism is, or isn't.

Correct. I don't think online abuse/ bullying directed at an individual because of their identity is acceptable. And I shall continue to say so. Those arent "my standards", they are well accepted standards of decency, a supposed principle of mumsnet and also the law.

Also how ironic that you follow with : "stick to your own opinions and stop..."

There's no irony. I'm happy to hear you do, or don't support DU, do or don't criticize or support his evidence, character or appearance, or any other aspect of him.

You can express your opinions about him, about me, or about any other poster using any words you wish.

When you criticize the words other posters use to express their opinions, that's tone policing.

Mumsnet has a moderation team paid to uphold the standards they seek to enforce on their website. If you feel he's being unfairly treated on this thread in contravention of the Terms of Use, that's where the remedy lies. Report the offending posts. Mumsnet doesn't need volunteer thread police.

Continuation thread:

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-64