Sandie Peggie: Employment Tribunal, associated legal claims, and related matters - thread #67

[nauticant]

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.

A second Employment Tribunal, Sandie Peggie vs Royal College of Nursing, has just been heard. The hearing started on Wednesday 23 September 2026 and ended on Thursday 1 October 2026. It is possible that a decision will be handed down before Christmas of this year.

Additional legal claims have been raised. Sandie Peggie is taking action against three senior managers who were witnesses in the first 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 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

Thread 66: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5584074-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-66 30 September 2026 to 1 October 2026

So there are two emails being mentioned. The first SP about the case being opened says she never recieved and didn’t look in junk, the second about the rationale for refusal of LA was sent in Jan but she only found it in junk in August.

DH you were taken to p321 in the bundle and I understand your position to be is that you have no recollection of receiving this email [which says a case…
… is being opened]
SP yes that's correct.
DH let's look at p322 – the heading of this letter which we see in bold face "Dear Sandie…" – the name that is in the "To" box of that is that number which I anticipate being your RCN number
SP no
DH you looked in your junk mail in Aug 2025 – have you taken any steps to see if this email found its way int your junk mail?
SP I've got no idea
DH thinking about it at this time… do I take it you didn't take any steps yourself to look at the legal assistance the RCN offer on the RCN website for instance.
SP if SF had mentioned it I would have explored it.
DH on p330 you tell SF you have received a letter about the suspension and that you have been put in contact with your MP and other support services.
SP yes

I’ve looked back at all her evidence in chief and SP was clearly following instructions to answer only the question she was asked and, tellingly, DH never asked her why she didn’t want to have a phone call with GT.

Also, re minimising. SP says GT got in touch two or three times but the emails DH brings up are often what he describes as keeping SP in the loop rather than requiring a response or an action. I don’t think it’s a gotcha because SP had earlier expressed her withdrawal from engagement, or trust in effect, because RCN had assumed her guilt and never even thought she might herself have a claim of discrimination. That never changed, none of their comms was about taking up the idea of her having a claim, only in trying to get her back to work within conditions of assumed guilt. She had no faith anymore.

I think there is room for understanding that SP was probably forwarding the emails to MG and getting her take and then leaving it at that for the most part bcos they still assumed her guilt.

Two comments - clearly Sandie's junk email is not deleted as rapidly as mine if an email sent in January can be found in August

and Naomi is an English barrister in a Scottish court. That is enough to make some judge's dislike here even if she had not made another Scottish judge look more than foolish.

There are weaknesses in Sandie's case but we were informed by a lawyer that's true of most discrimination cases. I wish Sandie had said clearly I didnt respond to requests for phone calls because 1. they were so taken over by GI belief I didnt think they would support me and 2. I felt they would twist anything I said so I wanted everything in writing.

For clarity, as I understand it, the first email she didn’t get was about the RCN opening a case which would support her in the i/x being started re her suspension. There is nothing to suggest they would support a claim of discrimination on her part. Ie the i/x could find that SHE had been discriminatory or it could find that SHE had not been discriminatory but it was not ever about whether she had been discriminated AGAINST.

If I am right I think it is really important to remember that because people are conflating that letter with a later request for a support for a claim about being discriminated AGAINST. That would be a very different proposal than the case being opened in the letter and would be, in effect, a different case and would require a different approach.

SP knew they were not suggesting she open a case for being discriminated against, letter or no. She only found out that was a possibility by getting external LA. The second letter was about the rationale for refusing LA because she had external LA — WITHOUT WHOM SHE WOULD NEVER HAVE KNOWN SHE HAD A CASE FOR BEING DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BECAUSE NOONE AT RCN EVEN CONSIDERED IT.

Utter Catch 22.

The distinction is easy to miss and SP did try and make that clear in her evidence in chief and x/e.

but this from NW about the email not recieved seems to miss that all important distinction and maybe thats where the confusion here is coming from

It seems that the RCN did open a case as we have evidence they composed and probably sent a letter to Peggie via email advising her of just that. The problem is Peggie never received it. This is either because the letter was emailed to the wrong address (most likely), was not emailed at all (possible) or did not exist at the time it is suggested it was created (unthinkable). Either way, the letter itself clearly states that the RCN will support Peggie, it will indemnify her against any costs incurred at this stage and it will raise, or help her raise a legal case against her employer. It is a fairly standard letter and comes with the usual caveats, such as the warning that:
“if it becomes clear to the local RCN office that your claim has no reasonable prospect of success or you have been made an offer, we feel you should accept, but you wish to continue your claim, our agreement to indemnify you in respect of the above costs may be withdrawn. We may also withdraw our agreement if we feel you are making unreasonable demands on RCN services. These decisions rest with the local RCN office. If we believe that your case requires a claim to an employment tribunal, we will make a referral for you to RCN legal services to assess whether your case has reasonable prospects of success and meets our minimum value threshold.“

All of this while her dad was very unwell.

so much for be kind. From a. Nurses union.

dickheads

Hmm, then I'm really confused. Nick has seen the letter. Why does it have that language in it if it's not about Sandie's case against her employer? This would all be so much easier if we could see the bundles.

It is about defending her against the accusation of being discriminatory which is what SF has assumed based on what he has been told by SP. So defending her against THAT allegation.

It can’t be support for defending her against being discriminated AGAINST because as SF made clear in his evidence it never occurred to him.

So defending her against her employer, yes, but only with regard to her being accused of being discriminatory.

If SF had identified that she might have been discriminated against and made that clear to SP at any point we wouldn’t be here now.

And everything else stems from there. Because what we know is that it would have been very unlikely given their capture for RCN to imagine SP had been discriminated against.

So support but for the wrong thing.

This is why it was so hard for SP, because she felt strongly she had a right not to have a man in a sss but RCN were not even willing to think such a thing let alone agree. How could she persuade them? She is not a debater or skilled at rhetorical debate or legal analysis. Her only recourse was to external LA and when the rationale for a case of being discriminated against was put to RCN they wriggled out of it, conveniently.

So for all they claim they offered support it was for the wrong sort of claim and so the wrong support which is why it was so upsetting to hear DF tell her to treat it like a holiday. It showed he never got it. He probably thought she’d get let off with a warning and he’d have done a good enough job. She would have to face the wrath of GI NHS and end up in exactly the same boat the next TRA appointment. His opening up of a case in support was, in effect, pointless.

Then MG set out the discrimination against her, then SC and some realisation by GT that sss were a thing that SP could reasonably expect but still no understanding of how she had been discriminated against so support only very minimal and almost wholly pointless. It was a surface band aid where the root and branch were wholly rotten

I am hoping the Judge decides they should have noticed that SP was the victim of discrimination and informed her of that possibility, and failed to do so, because of institutional bias. That seems the strongest point. What did DH say against this?

Does anyone know what level of compensation Sandie could expect IF she were to win this case? The case is about their failure to provide legal support and, because they didn’t, she is spending an absolute fortune (via her backer with deep pockets) on legal representation

Realistically Sandie is unlikely to get her costs back. The “win” would be if the judge finds the RCN did fail to support SP and advise her of her legal rights.

I don't think there is a “win” for either side. RCN officials have comprehensively been shown to be indoctrinated by GII. Sandie has lost her career - sadly there is no going back for her.

I don't think he said anything on that score. I think he is happy to assume the letter of support covered RCN, as did all their subsequent efforts.

The J could look at it two ways

1. RCN was well intentioned in their offers of support. The wider issues were being wrangled out of earshot and they couldn’t be expected to understand the implications.

I think this fails on the grounds that once SP had MG onboard, MG was a font of information and suggested strategical framing that meant ignorance doesn’t stand as a defence.

I think it also fails because as soon as a case had been made that set out the issue of discrimination and harassment against SP, they backed off even though her rep SF argued that they shouldn’t. There was ample room for NP to make an exception and I think that was proved.

2. RCN took a position too quickly and without making any reasonalt efforts of informing themselves or arming SP against her employer. When that information arrived it was seen as interference by external LA which absolved them of responsibility.

I hope the judge can see that NP’s attempt to delay the ET by making the later accusation of misgendering as sinister. He basically said ‘my way or the highway’ with regard to LA (which also implies he was willing to make an exception if it suited him). With three weeks to go why on earth would adding the misgendering accusation to the claim be even a suggestion but, if I remember correctly, it was a demand that needed to be met if RCN were to support SP in her claims of discrimination and harassment (which it was quite clear they didn’t want to touch with a barge pole).

Reflecting back on this case, PM is one of the most senior witnesses we have seen across many cases.

The level of institutional capture by GII portrayed by someone who is in a position to influence and set the strategic direction of the RCN is frightening.

It illustrates why public sector organisation like NHS, Police, LAs, Civil Service etc. are so reluctant to implement the SC judgement.

The fear of TRAs and their response is real. The bravery of Sandie, Jennifer, Darlington Nurses along with Alison Bailey, Jo Phoenix JKR, Sharon Davis, Sarah Phillimore and so many more women is amazing. I hope one day we have a memorial to all these brave women so like the suffragettes they are not forgotten and become part of history.

Nick's round up
https://nickwallis.substack.com/p/peggie-v-rcn-day-7-closing-submissions?publication_id=3399933&post_id=218408201&isFreemail=true&r=4p2qy&triedRedirect=true

Thank you.

I shall enjoy this evening's bedtime story!

Then I'm going to sleep, this week has absolutely knackered me, and that's just watching from my armchair.

Sandie must be beyond exhausted. I'm in awe of her strength and fortitude.

And as for Naomi... I hope she's fast asleep by now, after a couple of excellent drinks and something soothing to eat.

It appears Saint Sandie was scolded for the inconsistencies in her claims and there were a number of contradictions affecting the reliability of her evidence. And Cunningham seemed only able to attack the opposing barrister rather than the facts of the case. Not looking good for the racist joke making nurse.

The saggy elastic fell off your 'I'm gc but' mask some time ago, didn't it.

Have you even read all the threads on this over the last couple of years?

No matter how much you try the public won't get on board with the Mengele-type stuff applied to children that goes along with gender ideology.

I would go so far as to say it’s the only point. An earlier PP explained the legal position being (1) show RCN biased to GI and (2) show advice was poor/inadequate (I am massively paraphrasing).

All the rest of missing emails and unanswered phone calls is a smoke screen and irrelevant because they would not have identified or helped Sandie in a discrimination claim against Fife or Upton.

In terms of a “win” I think getting in writing from the judge that RCN was biased in favour of GI (even something relatively weak like “it could perhaps have been perceived that RCN paid more attention to GI than GC”) would be huge even if the financial win is zero. She’s going to have to say something about all the evidence Naomi put forward - even if it’s just the tat! - and which wasn’t really countered by RCN.

I was thinking about the eunuch questioning and it occurred to me that maybe Naomi was using that example from the + as the most egregious. Maybe she expected PM to say, well of course that is terrible, any sane person would agree. And then she would have said, what about paedophile, what about adult baby, what about furry?

And PM was just a gift because she couldn't even say that a child identifying as a eunuch was appalling. Hence the focus on it.

Going back briefly to the pouched rat diversion, they are also being used for TB screening. They are not only faster and cheaper than the standard 1st line lab test, they're also more accurate. They work less than an hour a day and get through hundreds of samples in that time.

Meanwhile, in their mine-detection work they have competition from trained bees. Bees!

Just so you prove you don't care with a post...

I mean you are defend a racist who expressed the wish to put bacon through a Muslim person's letterbox, and shared the most vile racist jokes about Pakistani people. But hey! She hates trans people (and was exposed for her thoroughly vile abuse on that doctor) so she must be OK. You can believe that Sandie is entitled to single sex spaces while also accepting that she's a thoroughly unpleasant individual and totally unfit to be a nurse.

I don't have anything else to say to you.

FWIW for lurkers.

The bacon comment was attributed to a different member of staff, not SP.

SP did not at any point abuse Dr Upton.

Dr Upton did however tell the tribunal that he intended to continue to give intimate examinations to women who had already requested single sex intimate care, and expected colleagues to bring him victims those same patients who had already stated their need for single sex intimate health care.

He also added that if a woman did manage in the moment to say "no!" and refused his male touch for said intimate exam he would consider them transphobic and they would be reported. This could result in a woman having health care denied to her because of "abusive behaviour".

This is the sort of Doctor some people who should stay in their cupboard would support. IMO Dr Upton has admitted to the world he would sexually assault female patients.