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

Goodness, what on earth caused that deletion? The reference to paedophilia was reporting on tribunal proceedings...

Thank you. Unfortunately I've just received an email saying that a letter I sent to lawyers on 22 September was only opened today when I sent them another letter on a similar matter last night. I now have to handle the fallout. I'm so sorry or I would have C&P. If I get a chance later I will step up.

Didn’t like the way DH Fraser the question to PM yesterday. The one about the optional training session at the RCN premises. It gave an impression that it had nothing at all to do with the RCN, and that was false. I thought that was a bit of a lie by omission. It was only for RCN members, as subsequent questioning by NC revealed.

ETA: Although PM said RCN could go, but it was optional.

From TT:

David Hay, KC, will make submissions for the Rs when we resume at approximately 1:15 pm.

A reminder that submissions can be very challenging to record; littered with abbreviations, citations of cases, references to other judgments and evidence. As always, our reporting is not a transcript. We do our best and report what we hear in good faith.

Unless otherwise indicated, it will be David Hay, KC, speaking in this session.

J returns.
J - brief inaudible comment
[clerk brings in more water]
DH - thank you J, moving my microphone closer to me, following discussions yesterday, I have fairly substantial submissions in front of me, and will read them out with few amendments. MLF has invited

I'm disliking him already.

I know! I know! He's just doing his job!

I'm grrrring already

From TT:

you to consider qs of shock, or morals or hope. This is not a court of morals, courts consider the evidence placed before them. That evidence has been ventilated in this tribunal. Recognise the evidence in this case and not what goes beyond them. It is not the qs from counsel

that constitute evidence but the answers from witnesses. Closing subs, for the benefit of the reader, and some information in first para about abbreviations etc.
2nd para - all 3 claims should be dismissed. I address this under 4 chapters. Turning first to observations on

From TT:

evidence. 1st is the C. C was generally credible, although her answers were occasionally vague or based on chitchat. Her original assertion about DU went from people were concerned, to some chit chat. She said she did say GC in her discussions with SF. She also accepted that

she did get written reasons. Did not correct or comment on GT letter to Fife and failure to copy all members. There is not one single suggestion that she had been failed by the union until over a year later in her email to NP. Repeated opportunities to put that point to SF,

Genius. May I offer you my recipe for Soup In A Basket?

From TT:

suggestion that this was really because of disappointment at being denied legal advice, she seemed to accept this was a possibility. Her oral advice should be viewed in this light. Explored in cross examination of quality of legal advice, this was revisited.

When asked about comms from GT, she said contacted 2 or 3 time, and no push from RCN on SS spaces. She minimised contact and it is inconsistent with documentary evidence, email, and follow up with Fife on SS spaces. GT wrote to Fife in emphatic language. And GT expressed her

From TT:

own dissatisfaction with Fife responses. Only thing left in complaint is that GT did not copy every Fife RCN member. Aspects of C evidence being somewhat at odds with the facts. Now NH, short evidence on support for C & mother. Limited support. The boundaries of his evidence

did stray into opinion and feelings. One such was about 'his feeling at the time' and another by reference to a Times article last weekend. What weekend was referred to? But that was in response to 'did you offer to do anything' . R's position is that opinion evidence is of

verbal slight of hand there using 'transpeople' instead of 'transwomen'.

sleight

I'll add - inclusive, exclusive, contradictory (and, wishfully, eunuch)

but followed by 'vulnerable'. Do I win a prize?

From TT:

no probhitive value. Now on to LM, her evidence largely credible but she omitted to mention prisons as part of her brief, pointed out by NP. 3 things to consider about her evidence; events at Edinburgh U, the disciplinary, and reactions to the article.

All of this happened more than 5 years ago. Her evidence cannot be separated from the factors above and the time that has passed. LM's concerns about RC were not replicated about any other RCN staff, came into contact with NP, SF, and others and recognised the balance of

Hmm. SP was suspended, there was a concerted effort to ruin her professional ability, name, reputation, and by extension her livelihood. She was fighting to keep her head above water as it was probably only in hindsight (and the revelations of the forensic data search) that she could begin to piece together what the heck had happened. Because she didn’t want to get undressed with the possibility a man (or men) would come waltzing in and get an eyeful.

Also, it seems to be a question of whether data was tampered with in some way, whether removed, or destroyed, or omitted.

It is only with lots of support by truly wonderful people that SP is even able to hold anyone to book in a tribunal.

If we all had the gift of hindsight in the moment, nothing bad would ever happen as it would actually be the gift of foresight. It’s a while since people were thought to be seers.

It’s evidence of one sidedness. If the RCN also flew the suffragette flag for sex realists that would be balanced.

Sounds like he's accusing Lisa Mackenzie of having dementia from a night that will be imprinted on her brain for ever I suspect!

...'Her recollection of the factors involved was some time ago '

He's gaslighting

From TT:

rights, expression of concern to RC about her safety, and member of RCN might be able to access workplace. Despite workplace being separate from union library. LM had not provided posts, tweets or name of member to RC. Now on to JW. Engaging nurse practicioner, attended

on line session, unusual event, report was dispassionate and balanced. Acknowledged support for LGBTQIA+ people, main legal presentation was described as accurate, mikes and cameras off most of the time, did not describe a hostile atmosphere, her

and the dismaying findings of misogyny - male voices to dominate shouting down of female members

Sums it all up really.

But I’d add really quite unpleasant male voices. Tenacious of you to listen to DH but it will only raise my BP so I’ll come back later.

Up is down, day is night, summer is winter, the sun is the moon, a man is a woman.

Yes, this.

It should be all flags for all things, or no flags (apart from RCN's own). It's really not a hard concept to grasp.

I'm quite relieved I'm going to the dentist in a bit!