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

From TT:

he should have? Because he had no evidence that is was necessary. There is no evidence that SF's decision to act as he did were destructive of Cs right to hold a GC belief, indeed she didn't know she held it.
This head of claim should fail.

Now on to 2nd head of claim; decision of NP on legal support for misgendering. Emails from MG treated as application for legal support and NP set out his reasons in two separate times. First - claims inextricably linked and C had legal representation on first claim.

'How did you keep a straight face when you said There is nothing to suggest that RCN is acting on any basis other than that of neutrality or accepting a plurality of views.? Kudos!'

From TT:

Rs awareness of the claim and the nature of the claim was shaped by comms from MG to Rs solicitors and others. The claim was targeting disc process for C, the C's solicitor was seeking to control the behaviour of SF in the disc proceedings. So those factors are clearly

supportive of inextricable link. And had C gained substantial legal advice, case had been considered by both solicitor and counsel, it was inconceivable that C had not legal advice and practical advice. And no response to why first claim had not been amended.

No then!

From TT:

NP was correct on both grounds and highly understandable why he concluded what he did. A further consideration, and that is the issue, were legal advice to be provided by R, how it might have bottomed out. And RCN position is if there is a conflict of advice RCN would withdraw.

And there is no suggestion that C was prepared to relinquish legal representation that she already had. And she confirmed that in cross exam. If the C had no intention of relinquishing first legal team, what would have happened if second legal team disagreed with the first

So the rCH makes it clear they support men in female wards etc, welcome Fred as a speaker, allow name calling and abuse and 'mournful' attitudes to the Sc judgement protecting women- all of which understandably mean no female NHS employee dares speak out.

Then use this as a defence as no women dare speak out. (like my lovely midwife neighbour told me earlier today!).

From TT:

team. Wouldn't they have had to be involved in first set of proceedings. Or would R provided solicitors been expected to conform to instructions from C's first legal team. The application for assistance not intended to be a change of agency - it was simply a request for

funding, and SF could see the difficulty. So on this claim, NP reached an informed decision, it is consistent with C having legal representation, entirely in accordance with the Rs policy on these matters. The wording does provide for discretion, the evidence of NP, SF and JM

that 'more colourful' posts by FW were made until after these events.

'More colourful' to describe a photograph of a man dressed as a woman receiving oral sex from another man in a sex dungeon, which was then sent to a disabled woman to harass her is certainly something...

Do GIs have to state: As a TIP (is trans-identifying person a real acronym or did I just make that up), I believe ... anything' to be believed?
Parity?

From TT:

is that there was a brighter line that was apply. There is nothing untoward in this decision given that C had no intention of changing agency. And in fact workplace representation was provided while legal assistance was not - evidence of discretion being exercised.

All of this set out in NPs response to MG, not motivated by C's GC beliefs.

This claim should be dismissed.
Onto 3rd claim.

DH finished

Break then NC.

10 mins

The evidence in this case is that no other person known to the RCN is known to be complaining about men in women’s ss facilities.
Except for the Darlington nurses (and every female nurse I’ve ever asked).

From TT:

This is GT's letter to NHS Fife, not copied to all RCN Fife members. The only person who has taken exception to this letter in MLF, C conceded in cross exam that her points had been made, and her only complaint was that letter had not been copied to all members.

A crucial difficulty in C's case is that she had brought a number of witnesses from across the country to give evidence, she has not brought one witness from NHS Fife. Counsel's assertion that there are many members waiting fearfully for encouragement is not evidence.

I’m being really dense but it has just occurred to me that the RCNs best defence would have been to say - without breaching confidentiality we have had x number of cases where we supported a member for expressing GC views/ objecting to TW in Female SSS etc.

The fact they haven’t done that means it’s highly likely they have never supported a member to defend GC beliefs.

While I would agree with you generally, eunuchs are mentioned in

the book of Esther (part of the Hebrew Bible, Old Testament in the Christian Bible)

and Matthew 18:12 (New Testament)
(KJV) King James Version: “For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake.”

An 11 year old might well have read the KJV on their own, or sat through a religious service where eunuchs are mentioned: we might hope that they don’t have more than a surface understanding of what it means.
I can’t at the moment find whether it’s part of the Lectionary, which is a map of which passages are read when throughout the year.

There are 11 year olds singing in chapel or church choirs who might hear a lot of Bible readings, and most might not be paying much attention to the reading. If it were me I would probably be getting the next piece of music ready.

Omg. Really. Someone else expected to put their head above the parapet , having seen how SP was treated. I wouldn’t , and I’m famously quite brave.

Again, I feel this is an admission that GI was rampant- he seems to be admitting that there was really bad stuff but trying to say it has no bearing

OR that even if women did, RCN would 'have to' ignore them because they have trans members, and they wouldn't be being 'inclusive' if they supported women complaining about men in women's ss facilities...

I think that's the impression the RCN witnesses have given: they were on the RSOH, which meant supporting trans members above all else. Sorry, DH, but the evidence is that RCN picked a side, and it wasn't women.

I would love the RCN to now poll all their female members and ask them if men should be in their changing rooms, and ask them if Jennifer Melle was wrong in how she dealt with her trans patient., And, while they’re about it! Ask them if they feel the RCN understands what it is to be a woman. I bet they are haemorrhaging members.

From TT:

For all those reasons - this claim should be dismissed, all claims fail.

And unless I can be of assistance, my submissions are complete.
J - no questions.
Offers short break, back in ten minutes.
Court rises.

End of part 2 of afternoon.

We begin part 3 of the afternoon session. Earlier coverage in the linked thread. t.co/NWkj6Saugb

We are waiting for the judge to return.

Judge back

NC started

That was a welcome repositioning of NC's mic. She was inaudible.

from Nick Wallis

NC points of reply in order to DH's subs - in par 4 DH deprecates C's evidence that there might be others also uncomfortable with DU. Not relevant. Q for tribunal was the reason for R doing what it did. No reason to doubt her evidence...