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

NP concluded that the claim was inexplicably linked to earlier claims; it was open to him to conclude this but was it why he rejected a request for funding. And the suggestion that it was only a claim for funding; this appears nowhere in evidence and NP did not say it was why he rejected the claim.

PM accepted that there are likely many women members who hold gc beliefs, and that she wasn't aware of any complaints of trans identifying men using women's CRs. And raw numbers mean this is not a frequent problem. Leaving aside the culture of fear, it is not surprising that complaints weren't coming forward. The public face of RCN, lanyards, badges, newsletters, framing of legal cases, care guides suggested they would not be listened to.

Eunuchs!

We're probably not the best people to ask but I think he tried to pull everything back to bare facts, whereas NC was on fire about sex realism v GI in general, he kept it close to how the RCN treated SP like anyone else and they deffo did not discriminate against her.
I suppose it was his job to be plodding and nit-picking. I suppose you could say he did his job.
We are not the important ones, though - the judge may have found his plodding exactly what the LL.D ordered

SP learned the hard way what gender critical meant.

Didn’t she just. The idea that she couldn’t put a name to her strongly held belief in reality and common sense being held against her is IMO despicable.

from Nick Wallis
NC
At par 94, Mr Hay says application for LA was supposed to be a way of securing funding - there is no evidence for this and if NP did not assess on that basis it doesn't help R

Finally I want to take issue with something DH said by way of intro - he said there were occasions in my submissions re shock hope and morals and urged you to decide on evidence. You do of course have to determine the claim on the evidence
But you bring your own experience to bear on the case and inevitably a judge brings their own moral compass. much of your function is to assess what is plausible, the motivations of someone. If you see a witness unable to confirm that affirming a eunuch ID of a little boy...

Most of us would be on a sick day on the sofa under a blanket if we were as clearly unwell as NC is. She's a trooper.

NC finished

Castles Made Of Sand?

Phew!

J: Written judgement soon as able to do so!

The scene in the courtroom.

Strange, I didn't ask for rainbow colours.............

from Nick Wallis
NC
...is extraordinary evidence because it is morally repugnant and you can take into account of that and the implausibility of a senior person that position is morally wrong. If PM cannot condemn that and say god knows how that got in there then something has very badly come unstuck and I think that thing is GI and not just with PM but across the whole healthcare sector.

J thank you I need to review the evidence I will let you have a written judgment as soon as I am able to do so.

From TT

Finally the suggestion that C's legal team would be driving other legal representation from the back seat. That is nowhere in evidence and would be a violation of any other solicitor's oath.

In DH's introduction, he says you must decide based on the evidence. Every judge needs to bring to bear his or her own moral compass. Much of your function is to assess the credibility of testimony before them.

If a witness is unable to condemn the affirmation of a eunuch identity for a little boy is morally repugnant and it is part of your judicial function to take notice of that. And to take account of a senior person being unable to condemn that. If they are unable to condemn that, something has come badly unstuck. I say that is GI, across the RCN, across the entire healthcare sector. Unless I can assist you further, that is my response to MLFs submissions.

Another one over!

Sad times

And then after the fight, NC and DH, seemingly, have a friendly chat.

From TT

J - thank you both, I will give my judgment in writing, I can't way when that will be but as soon as possible. Court rises. Hearing concludes.

Are we placing bets on when the judgement will be handed down?

I'm saying 18th December 2026

To the cut and pasters and as ever @nauticant

How come there has been no drama in this tribunal about the correct sex pronouns being used?

And someone said upthread that they got the impression that the judge dislikes NC. Isn't this often the case? 😄

I agree with pp that the eunuch stuff doesn't land. It's too sensationalist and hyperbolic because there isn't any specific example of anything to do with it relevant to the case.

I'm confused as to why she is pushing this so hard unless it's for the media interest. Surely a more relevant issue would be catheters or pregnancy, particularly seeing as:

• Witness JM was trying to hand over info about the patient needing a catheter
• There is a published case of a stillbirth to a trans man (on testosterone) because no-one considered "he" might actually be pregnant and in labour:

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/reproductive-health/articles/10.3389/frph.2021.670919/full

That was quite a finale by NC 🎉🎉🎉

All fingers crossed for a speedy and sensible judgement.

14th January 2027

I'd rather a win here than a further appeal otherwise the unions will continue to discriminate. Im also not sure what precedent an appeal on this case would set. Its not really covering any new legal principles like the Forstater case

We never found out, did we? I was thinking of Drifter's Escape
Oh, help me in my weakness
I heard the drifter say
As they carried him from the court room
And were taking him away
Well, my trip hasn't been a pleasant one
And my time it isn't long
And I still do not know
What is was that I've done wrong

I presume because there wasn't actually a man, claiming to be a woman, in the room to be personally outraged.