Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #66

[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: www.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 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

Thread 63: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5581909-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-63 24 September 2026 to 27 September 2026

Thread 64: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583133-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-64 27 September 2026 to 29 September 2026

Thread 65: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5583663-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-65 29 September 2026 to 30 September 2026

In case it might be of help, using this URL:

https://x.com/search?q=from%3Atribunaltweets&src=typed_query&f=live

captures all TT latest tweets including unthreaded ones. Also, a quick scroll down and then back up will auto-refresh.

She's really struggling.

She needs to stop.

5 mins break

She's surely due a medal of some sort.

from Nick W

NC
Second thing: (ii) you understand and accept that sex realist or gender critical beliefs are protected under the equality act 2010, and that it must treat discrimination on this ground in the same way as it would treat discrimination because of any other protected characteristic

Again that should have been wholly unexceptional statement of what Forstater means and something an employer should not hesitate to confirm and union should not hesitate to ask it confirm.

Third thing: (iii) it acknowledges that in Lyte of the Supreme Court's judgement in For Women Scotland, where it reports to provide single sex facilities for women. It is not entitled to permit those facilities to be used by men and that "men" for these purposes includes men who identify as women irrespective of whether or not they hold a GRC

In a sane world that should have been a wholly uncontroversial proposition which the union should not have hesitated to ask the employer to affirm.

(break)

Gallant Nick offers water

Finally Nick took her a bottle!

I wonder who's sat next to NW. Another journalist perhaps?

mm, not for me it doesn't... but I have something that seems to be kind of working most of the time now

Didn't he give PM one yesterday as well?

I thought it was a stenographer?

' I thought ten thousand swords water bottles must have leapt from their scabbards...'😁

fnarr fnarr

He's one of the good ones, for sure

How did you generate that link? Best I've found for now is to be in TT's Replies tab and refresh

😂😂

I realised as soon as I pressed post! But thought 😏 I'll leave it!

NC starting again

Don't think she can be - no machine

From TT:

womens spaces. This should have been something a union would have been willing to do. The whole point of a union is collective action, assert rights collectively more effective. This was a collective matter and employer should have been asked? This should have been unexceptional.

In line with Forstater, union and employer should have been happy to state they would guarantee to allow discussion openly.

Union should not have hesitated to ask employer to affirm.

[NC needs a moment.]

[We will resume after short pause.]

I used advanced search in X and included in the selection all tweets from TT.

Maybe this

https://x.com/search?q=(from%3Atribunaltweets)&f=live&src=typed_query

Ahh, I think you're on the right track and you have to construct your own search on a webpage of X where you're logged in.

Hmm, where do you find Advanced Search in X? I only have an Explore, as far as I can see, which is a very unadvanced search. (Web desktop interface.)

Hamsters are not sociable creatures. They may be nice, but don't put them near any other hamsters, there will be blood ...

3 dots to the right of the search query box.

From TT:

J Returns.

NC I hope after water and cough sweet I make it to the end!

I was talking about the three request in 29 August 2025 letter to GT. Her response to request from claimant, and refusal to as requested to do copy to her colleagues

Amendments and to request simpley rewriting in her own words? In all cases making statement less far reaching, less forthright and to particularise to SP rather than affecting all members. That is not coincidence, however consciously ... if she had written as publicly and in terms SP asked.