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

I think this ET is part of a broader strategy and has 3 aims:

1. to do a shot-across-the-bows of a captured union for them, and for other unions, to understand they can be held to account;
2. to get publicity for how captured unions can be with the hook being examples of really mad stuff they're willing to promote; and
3. to win the ET.

In my version, 1) and 2) are the most important and 3) would be a nice-to-have.

Good grief. I wonder whether anything explaining any of that was in the bundle? I don't think anyone just listening to proceedings would have got any idea about it, certainly I didn't.

The union case I really wish could be brought is In Defence of Academic Freedom: Adult Human Female by Deirdre O'Neill and Michael Wayne (search), against UCU, where there was a stupid first instance ruling and grounds of appeal (drafted by Naomi and Charlotte) have been allowed, i.e. they could appeal and if they did and won it would be a binding EAT decision. However, they've only raised 7k and there's been no news in 2026 so I fear that's not happening :-(

Would that even be ethical, though? Surely barristers (and solicitors) have to have the overwhelming aim of winning their client's case? Any additional aims would not be allowable unless they also had the effect of tending towards the legal victory?

Barristers have a professional obligation to argue their client's case as strongly as they can, consistent with their overriding obligations to the court.

There's no prescription on why a client brings a case, or why a barrister thinks it's a good case to argue.

I think this is a big problem.

Many many people often struggle to fully understand or empathise with a situation they’ve never found themselves in. And I’d bet that TiM take great care to present themselves as charming and harmless around people with status and authority.

When Pritti Patel was accused of bullying another MP said he’d always found her to be unfailingly polite and charming. Yes, to him. Not so much to her underlings, duh.

I agree. I was a trade union officer in a very male dominated environment and the shortened version of my first name is sometimes considered a male name. This was before providing pronouns really got going (even in a trade union) so putting she/her would have been unusual, so I often put Ms before my shortened name or used my full name. I have to confess though that this was mainly to show that a woman was doing the job that a lot of members thought should be male only.

In your first bullet point are you referring to the email with numbers in the address box? If so there was no evidence that it turned up in SPs spam folder. DH asked if she had checked the spam folder but she didn't say it had been found there.

I'd be staggered if SP wasn't fully aware and supportive of the tactical purposes of her cases. It has to be a good part of what has fuelled her this far.

At this point I presume she's "in for a penny, in for pound".

Her career is fucked, she will never be able to go back to being a nobody, and she's already had just about every bit of shit that can be thrown duly thrown at her.

She has a strong family unit of support and the support, I hope, of individuals known and unknown, helping to keep her sane.

She no doubt realises by now if she won't do it then who will?

ETA quite frankly the woman has ovaries of steel!

I remember that one but I think that there was also another email that Sandie confirmed she found in her spam box at a late stage. If nothing else, this tells us that she wasn't systematically checking her spam every few days as we all should (you do, don't you?) and makes it more plausible that the other mail may have landed there (and then been automatically deleted after some number of days). The email with numbers in the address box was frustrating and I wish someone more tech savvy had been involved before the actual hearing. The most likely thing seems to be that what was printed by the respondents for the bundle was the copy stored in their system which was set up that way, rather than that it was ever actually mailed to that number as an address. Honestly I don't feel confident to conclude, from Sandie saying she didn't receive it, that it wasn't sent; and I also don't agree that it was necessarily reasonable to require RCN to check that she had received it. That's a part of why I feel the case is weak and especially why it bothers me that Sandie mis-stated (including under oath) the number of emails she'd received from GT. If she deleted that mail without reading it and then forgot about it, I wouldn't blame her in day to day life, but the fact that I (and perhaps the judge) don't feel confident she didn't do that makes her evidence a liability here.

Yes and the introduction of FW and his 'colourful' photograph ably demonstrates perfectly the sorts of character we are expected to share our spaces with.

I only started religiously checking my spam after an email in a chain of emails unexpectedly went to spam (an event that worked to the advantage of the NHS as it stopped the clock on a SAR). I found it purely by accident whilst looking for something else.

I for one would have finished painting the kitchen a week ago, so bring on reality

I might have to decorate my bedroom.

I stripped the wall paper off in May 2009! (Not a typo)

I think when such a senior member of the RCN union can’t call an obvious spade a spade it effectively demonstrates GI capture. NC has chisen it because it is such an obviously easy one to respond to if not captured.

Do you think children should be affirmed as eunuchs on their say so in a medical setting, and for that to form the basis of their medical records and further medical treatments.

No, should be the only answer.

Or she could have said something more qualifying, such as, no medical decisions would be made solely on the basis of a child identifying as a eunuch, of course.

But then NC would habe asked her where it makes that clear in the guidance…of course it does not say that because we know the TRA line is no discussion, just acceptance.

It is UTTERLY shocking that such guidance was published.

It also refers excellently back to NC’s question to PM to explain LGBTQIA+ which she could not complete. It demonstrates the complete lack of oversight and the inability of very senior bosses to question what is happening in their name.

I think people don’t like that she used it because it makes them uncomfortable. It would be much more comfortable to use something less disturbing but we need to bring our just how disturbing GI capture is. I think she used it sensibly and well.

All that said I can't find evidence in either TT or Nick Wallis's live tweeting that there was a case where Sandie said of some email that she hadn't got it immediately but only later because it was in her spam box. Neither of them records everything said though, so it's possible I didn't dream it. Anyone else remember?

I think Naomi probably got more 'uncomfortable' words, and scenarios, in repeatedly in one tribunal than all the rest of the tribunals combined.

I applaud her, even if it did make some a little queasy (no one should have to look at Fred in his sex dungeon)

I think in normal practice when information is vital there needs to be some confirmation of receipt. If I send someone an email and don’t get a reply I don’t assume they got it and ignored it. I would follow up. I haven’t heard from you recently and wondered if you got my email, for example. Especially if that that person is in the middle of a highly stressful suspension and i/x. Also, it’s unlikely any witness would remember the number of emails accurately on the stand. Given the bundle contains a submission of emails from both sides it shouldn’t need to be asked.

If nothing else, this tells us that she wasn't systematically checking her spam every few days as we all should (you do, don't you?) and makes it more plausible that the other mail may have landed there (and then been automatically deleted after some number of days).

If you're an office worker, or someone who deals with emails day in day out you might, but there's no reason to assume that others do. A nurse may not need to access her work's email in her role, and many people who have home email addresses don't use them very often. The RCN on the other hand should have produced a copy of all the emails they claim they sent, they are office based, they really have no excuse. The Judge might not take their word that they sent them.

I think NC is setting out for the judge how important it is for organisations to properly de-Stonewall themselves.

She has shown that even the very frugal steps is taking because of this ET don’t go anywhere changing the dynamic of authoritarianism on which GII depends for survival.

She needs the Judge to accept that responsibility. She has given plenty of evidence as gris to that mill and underlined the clarity of the SC judgment to give strength to the judge. We have seen plenty of judges not willing to accept that responsibility and some who are. It’s a bit of a crapshoot and wholly depends on the capacity for the judge to be informed and remain capable of independent legal analysis within broader naivities.

if the judge doesn’t accept that this judgment is an important aspect of how society can correct itself then the evidence matters very little. She will hide behind mealy process, it is easily done. Discrimination cases seldom win even when process is close to abysmal. Judge Kemp was faced with truly abysmal process form NHSFife to the point where he had no option but to find against them but his judgment showed that if he could have found even the slightest means to do otherwise he would have done.

Let me emphasise that I'd love to be wrong and see SP win! However, if I'm providing a service to someone and my mail doesn't require a reply, then I certainly don't follow up to check receipt (and if I were on the other side, receiving the service, and someone did this, I'd find it irritating). It's certainly not normal practice. And sure, not everyone checks their spam or even their email all the time but if you're in the midst of an important situation you should. And Sandie's mis-statement of the number of emails wasn't an unimportant error, it was (as DH said) minimising the extent to which RCN had tried to engage with her.

Yes. This. So much this.

And we will be treating people who do not observe these rules as people who break the law.

Easy.

I disagree on the point re number of emails because it assumes that sending emails is a sufficient means of showing engagement. The whole argument here is that there was absolutely no understanding or willingness to understand SP’s position. Engagement isn’t in sending an email but in doing the work in trying to understand what is framing SPs situation and how to understand her point of view. It is no surprise that SP had more or less given up in dealing with the RCN reps who from the off had assumed her guilt and made it clear they had assumed her guilt. DH is arguing it is quantity that matters but NC is arguing it is quality. DH made a big deal GTs requests for a phone call and allowed GT to assert that she might have understood better if SP explained it all to her. Even tho SP had explained herself to earlier rep and found no understanding.

DH can argue she was minimising engagement but that relies on a numerical assessment of engagement, rather than content or meaning It is the only defence he has but offset against the assumptions they were making I don’t think it scores well.

I think it was an email from GT explaining why certain things had not been done?