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

Your original claim extended beyond toilets, but even if we confine it to lavatories, a building regulation governing signage for new or relevant building work does not establish the much broader proposition that any toilet labelled “women” is automatically “mislabelled” as a matter of law if trans women are permitted to use it.

If that were the legal rule the High Court was applying in paragraph 61, it could simply have said so. Instead, Swift considered the discrimination question for a toilet specifically labelled 'women' and inclusive of trans women; he did not say that the “women” label was itself unlawful or legally incorrect.

As far as I understand it, the judge was only required to consider the questions put before him, and that didn't include consideration of clear signage.

But why wouldn't you want people to understand what a sign means? Who does that help?

This putting people off the thread is the point IMO.

Just fill it up with utter custard takes on what the law actually is, make up silliness about how "mis-labelled" isn't a proper legal term, and refuse to say a Dr who states his intent to sexually assault some female patients is doing something wrong.

I appreciate the attempts to rebut the nonsense, but I feel a little sorry for Naticant who, at the rate of rubbish Lacksie is filling the thread with, might return to find we've fired through thread #68 and are halfway through #69, and sadly thanks to one persistent poster very little of substance will have happened.

Did Lacksie ever take their waffle to the thread set up for them, or was it just a straight no to be contrary? Ah that would have been nice! Bet there would only have been a handful of posts and then the thread would have sat till the next relevant SP update.

I think some people just really, really like the attention. Any attention. Oh and the thought they might be annoying some women. That's probably a bonus for that sort of person. It's a bit pathetic really.

If the loophole you are relying on is unclear signage, that seems to create a lot of uncertainty for trans people.

Talking of @nauticant, she mentioned earlier that she was going to be away and asked us to post the link to the next thread if necessary. This one is filling up so fast that I'm posting the link now, in case the thread is full before I get back to it.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5585414-sandie-peggie-employment-tribunal-associated-legal-claims-and-related-matters-thread-68

At the end of the day our friend from down under is clearly a man who thinks they are a woman. Once you've deceived yourself to that extent that what is fact and what is wishful thinking you don't really stand a chance of distinguishing between what the law actually says and what you want it to say - with an added dose of what Jolyon would also like it to say....

Maybe we should not engage with the poor deluded soul?

Calling the drivel you are writing " legal argument" is doing some heavy lifting here.

Everything you say is incorrect. Your quack "arguments" read as delusional, factually incorrect, and seemingly based only on the desperation of some men to get into women's single sex spaces for personal validation.

Carry on please. You are really helping our cause when we point out how insubstantial these supposed tra gotchas are. And you are doing it for us for free!

So that people of the male variety can go in to the ladies and say they didn't think the women's means for biological women only judgement applies that that women's toilet because they thought it applied to a mythical different toilet?

Paragraph 61 specifically considers an arrangement where trans women are permitted to use a facility labelled “female”/“women”, while other males are excluded.

If simply labelling that facility “women” were itself unlawful, it would be rather odd for the judge to go on to consider whether that very arrangement amounted to unlawful sex discrimination without mentioning that more basic problem!

And of course I think signage should be clear. But “clear” doesn’t simply mean conforming to your preferred meaning of the sign.

This thread was originally about SP and her claim against her union and of course it’s directly linked to her original claim against DU and Fife HA. Thank you to those with genuine legal and professional expertise, I am much wiser but feel somewhat older after all the lengthy exchanges. The word filibuster springs to mind I respectfully suggest we don’t fall for it.

Well I for one, am going for a nap. The fake Rumpole can drivel on. Wake me up if anything actually relevant to Sandi's case happens.

You’re right, and hopefully everyone will get bored soon.

As you have been told as nauseam, Paragraph 61 is nothing more than obiter dicta - an aside by the judge, who went on to dismiss the case. It is not law and the fact you are clinging to it so tenaciously shows the paucity of your arguments. Pathetic really...

This type of thing has worked well for TRAs in the past. That’s why they do it. I think it only works when playing to the gallery now though, to most people it’s just irritating burble rather than groundbreaking insight.

So you are agreeing that the facility would need to be clearly labelled to show that some men would be included?

Yes, paragraph 61 is obiter. I have never claimed it is binding law.

But “obiter” does not mean “legally meaningless”, and the fact that the claim was ultimately dismissed does not make everything the judge said on the legal issues before him irrelevant.

I’m citing paragraph 61 for the much narrower point it actually supports: the judge expressly contemplated a trans women-inclusive facility labelled "women" and considered whether excluding other males from it could amount to direct sex discrimination. That is plainly relevant to the claim being made here. If the signage of "women" itself were illegal it would be very strange for the judge not to say so and instead reason about whether it would be unlawful discrimination,( and concluding , that no it wouldn't necessarily- it would depend on the circumstances ).

Calling that “pathetic” doesn’t change the point.

My original post in which I used the term "mis-labelled" to which you objected was about paragraph 61 of Swift's judgment, which is about toilets. I have therefore quoted you one of the regulations related to toilets. I am not going to identify every single regulation involved for every single sex facility.

And you really don't understand how the courts work. They consider the questions put before them and nothing else. Swift did not consider whether the signage on the toilets in paragraph 61 was lawful because that was not argued before him and was not relevant to the issue he was being asked to decide. The question he was considering was whether EHRC was correct to say that, if trans identifying males are permitted to use a single sex female lavatory, all biological males must be permitted to use that lavatory. Signage is not relevant to answering that question.

But the Building Regulations still don’t establish your broader proposition, even in relation to toilets.

And paragraph 61 specifically contemplates a facility labelled “women”/“female”!! So signage plainly forms part of the factual scenario the judge was considering, even if the legality of the sign itself wasn’t a separate issue he had to determine.

If that signage were simply and obviously unlawful in its own right, it would be very odd for the judge to analyse whether the arrangement was unlawful in a different way, without mentioning that more basic problem. 😆

Since page 2 🙄

He said that he couldn't say with certainty that it would be unlawful, and that the EHRC were not wrong to say that it might be discriminatory, but if you are a building manager you should certainly try to provide this facility and see how it goes. Other people might be a little more cautious.

I'm sure the judge has contemplated many things in his legal career. Contemplating something is irrelevant if it doesn't actually make a difference to the result of the case and in this case it certainly didn't, much to the chagrin of the GLP. What I called pathetic is the way you keep coming back to it as though it bolsters the points you're trying to make. It really doesn't.

You agree. You could have at least taken the discussion to the thread set up for it instead of clogging up this one @Lacksie

I'm not the only poster responsible for this discussion. I'm just the only person who doesn't agree with the party line.

There's always one. 😉 You remind me of the last Japanese soldier, valiantly but fruitlessly trying to go on fighting WW2 in 1949.

UK law as "the party line" 😆😆
Nothing gets in the way of a man wanting access to women undressing