Employment tribunal involving nurse and NHS Fife set to resume
Veteran nurse Ms Peggie brought the case against the health board after her complaint about sharing a changing room with transgender medic Dr Beth Upton led to her being suspended.
Ms Peggie lodged a complaint of sexual harassment or harassment related to a protected belief under section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.
A ten-day hearing was adjourned in February, shortly before the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.
The tribunal hearings are due to recommence in Dundee on Wednesday morning.
It was revealed earlier this month that NHS Fife has spent more than £220,000 defending itself in the employment tribunal.
The extent of the costs was uncovered following an intervention by Scotland's information commissioner, who ruled that the health board had failed to comply with freedom of information requests.
Up to the end of March, a total of £220,465.93 was spent on the case, including counsel fees and services from the NHS Scotland's central legal office.
Information Commissioner David Hamilton said NHS Fife should carry out searches for data on the costs of the case, describing the situation as 'frustrating' when freedom of information requests were appealed.
In its response to the requests, the health board said: 'These costs will be reclaimed through the national clinical negligence and other risks indemnity scheme (CNORIS).
'Under CNORIS, NHS Fife's financial liability is limited to £25,000, which ensures that the legal proceedings do not impact frontline clinical or patient services.
'NHS Fife is not in a position to estimate the full cost of proceedings while the tribunal remains ongoing.'
Ms Peggie has publicly welcomed the UK Supreme Court judgment which in April made clear the terms 'woman' and 'sex' in the 2010 Equality Act 'refer to a biological woman and biological sex'.
She said that she 'expects NHS Fife to immediately stop permitting any man who identifies as a woman access to female-only, single-sex spaces in the workplace'.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
3 hours ago
- Times
NHS Fife ‘undermined Supreme Court ruling' in Sandie Peggie tribunal
The health board at the centre of a landmark employment tribunal has been accused of undermining a Supreme Court ruling by claiming a trans doctor is not a man. Sandie Peggie, a nurse, is suing NHS Fife and her colleague Beth Upton for unlawful discrimination after having to share a single-sex changing room with the doctor. At the hearing, Jane Russell KC, the barrister for NHS Fife and Upton, has repeatedly questioned the meaning of the Supreme Court ruling on April 16 on the legal definition of 'sex'. For Women Scotland, the campaign group responsible for the judgment, has told the Dundee employment tribunal that it is 'concerned' about Russell's comments. The group has requested permission to intervene in the tribunal and has been told neither Peggie's legal team nor the lawyers for NHS Fife and Upton object. In a letter to the hearing, For Women Scotland listed three exchanges between Russell and Naomi Cunningham, Peggie's barrister. In one, Russell stated the Supreme Court judgment was an abstract case regarding representation on public boards in Scotland and did not concern lavatories. On July 23, Cunningham referred to Upton as a 'man' saying the doctor was a trans woman and trans women are men. 'Legally speaking, a trans woman is a man, so there was a man in the women's changing room,' she said. In response, Russell said she did not agree with that interpretation of the judgment, calling it a 'contentious matter' and a 'point in dispute'. Finally, on July 24, Russell said: 'Dr Upton is not a man. For Women Scotland doesn't say so.' The gender-critical group's letter to the tribunal judge said the first exchange was not 'factually correct', adding: 'We are surprised there was no correction by the tribunal.' The submission added: 'In the second and third exchanges, Ms Cunningham was factually correct in her statement that Dr Upton is a man under the Equality Act, in accordance with the For Women Scotland ruling by the UK Supreme Court. 'This should not be a point in dispute by the court, nor regarded as contentious or a hypothesis to be tested.' The letter went on: 'We are concerned about two things, firstly that closing submissions may attempt to re-litigate our case and debate the definitions of 'sex', 'woman' and 'man' in the Equality Act, when these are settled matters in law. 'And secondly, that if the tribunal does not make it clear to the parties (and the viewing public) that 'what exactly For Women Scotland says' is in fact clear and settled law and not 'contentious', 'a hypothesis' or 'in dispute' then it may render the judgment open to appeal on any point where Dr Upton's sex is relevant.' Peggie is seeking financial compensation for 'harassment' and 'hurt feelings' from both Upton and NHS Fife. Her case includes a request for an extra 25 per cent compensation from the health board because of an 'unreasonable delay' in its investigation into her conduct. The nurse, who has more than 30 years service, was suspended in connection to allegations of gross misconduct. She was cleared of the charges after an internal hearing on June 25, 18 months after an incident with Upton that prompted the dispute. The pair had both been in the women's changing room at Victoria Hospital, in Fife, on Christmas Eve 2023. Peggie and Upton exchanged words with the nurse uncomfortable at having to share the women's changing facilities with a biological male. She was placed on special leave then suspended after the incident. If the employment judge finds that Peggie was discriminated against by the health board, she is also requesting a 'protected disclosure detriment' from both respondents. Peggie is not, however, entitled to loss of earnings as she is still employed by NHS Fife. After a protracted dispute under freedom of information legislation, the health board was pushed to disclose the cost so far of the tribunal proceedings after a rebuke from the Scottish information commissioner. As of Wednesday, the tribunal has cost more than £258,000, although NHS Fife said it would only pay a maximum of £25,000. The rest is covered by insurance designed to protect health boards from significant financial losses. Costs are expected to have increased significantly during the second round of evidence hearings, which ran from July 16 to July 29. Earlier this week Peggie was recalled to give further evidence in her defence after allegations of racism and Islamophobia from colleagues who claimed she used offensive language. The nurse blamed her upbringing for the use of racial slurs, saying it had not been 'politically correct'. Peggie also named 13 colleagues who she claimed also opposed Upton using the women's changing room. Evidence hearings have now concluded and a verdict is not expected until at least December.
The Herald Scotland
11 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
For Woman Scotland intervene in Sandie Peggie tribunal
For Women Scotland (FWS), the group responsible the landmark ruling in April, warned the employment tribunal's judgment could be open to "appeal on any point where Dr Upton's sex is relevant". He made the remarks while overseeing evidence in the tribunal dispute centred around transgender doctor Dr Beth Upton's use of the female changing room at Victoria Hospital in Dundee. During the tribunal, NHS Fife's lawyer Jane Russell KC repeatedly objected to Dr Upton being referred to as a "man" by Ms Peggie's barrister Naomi Cunningham. She described the FWS judgment - which ruled that the terms "sex", "man" and "woman" in the 2010 Equality Act referred to biological sex - as an "abstract case" that only related to the representation of public boards in Scotland. Ms Russell later told the tribunal that "Dr Upton was not a man, she is a transwoman". Ms Peggie's barrister Ms Cunningham referenced the FWS judgment, stating that "legally speaking, a transwoman is a man". Judge Kemp then intervened, stating on July 23: "I think that's a contentious matter, what exactly For Women Scotland says and what it means. "I think it would be appropriate to put this on a hypothesis that you have outlined - on the hypothesis of what you say is correct in law. "That would be appropriate. But until we have had the opportunity of hearing all the submissions and making our decisions on that, this is a point in dispute." Following that exchange, FWS asked for permission to intervene in the employment tribunal. Read more: Clerks from the Dundee Tribunal Hearing Centre wrote to the organisation on Thursday to state neither legal teams objected to the intervention. The submission from FWS's Trina Budge, Marion Calder and Susan Smith, said Ms Russell KC was "simply not factually correct", adding the organisation was "surprised" there was no correction by the tribunal. FWS then condemned the comments by the judge, adding: "This should not be a point in dispute by the court, nor regarded as contentious or a hypothesis to be tested." The organisation said it was "beyond doubt" that the Supreme Court ruled that the term woman was linked to biological sex. The submission said: "It is simply not a stateable argument for Ms Russell to propose that For Women Scotland does not say that Dr Upton is a man. "It may well be a matter for the court to decide whether the Supreme Court judgment has any applicability to the case in hand, but it is not open for Ms Russell, or the tribunal, to contest the findings of the apex court. "We are concerned about two things, firstly that closing submissions may attempt to re-litigate our case and debate the definitions of "sex", "woman", and "man" in the Equality Act, when these are settled matters in law. "And secondly, that if the tribunal does not make it clear to the parties (and the viewing public) that "what exactly For Women Scotland says" is in fact clear and settled in law and not "contentious", "a hypothesis" or "in dispute" then it may render the judgment open to appeal on any point where Dr Upton's sex is relevant." Read more: On Thursday, tribunal clerks wrote to FWS, stating: "The tribunal is not in a position to comment on the matters you raise until all submissions have been made by the parties." The tribunal resumes for oral submissions on September 1 and 2, with both legal teams appearing in person in Dundee. However, it is unlikely a decision will be made on the day, with the judge expected to take a significant period of time to consider the evidence. It could be until December before a judgment is declared. FWS's Supreme Court appealed the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018 which aimed to increase the representation of women on public boards. The legislation stated a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate should be treated as a woman. However, the ruling has had significant ramifications on UK-wide policy. The guidance is currently being considered by governments, while the Equality Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said in May that 'trans woman (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women's facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men's facilities, as this will mean that they are no longer single-sex facilities'. Last week, the Museum Galleries Scotland, which supports 455 non-national museums and is Scottish Government-funded, said these proposals could force some museums to close or leave trans people with no facilities.
The Herald Scotland
13 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
The story of NHS Fife's legal fees in Sandie Peggie tribunal
However, the case is complex and NHS Fife do not actually pay the full costs. The taxpayers most likely will. Shared legal team Crucially, NHS Fife is sharing a legal team with Dr Upton, the transgender medic at the forefront of the case. This may sound odd but it is actually standard in NHS legal cases. It is argued that the staff member may only have become exposed to any risk of liability after being sued while doing their job. However, NHS Fife must weigh up the risks in sharing a legal team, including whether there could be any "conflicts of interest". Ms Peggie is suing her employer and Dr Upton after she objected to the trans medic's use of the female changing room on Christmas Eve in 2023 at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy. She also made reference to the situation being similar to men being housed in the female prison estate. The nurse was placed on special leave in December 2023 and suspended in January 2024. She was cleared of all misconduct allegations on July 15 2025, including two patient safety complaints. NHS Fife legal team It is important to note that health boards in Scotland do not directly employ their own solicitors. Solicitors in the Central Legal Office (CLO) act exclusively for the NHS. However, the CLO then appointed Jane Russell KC, from the Essex Court of Chambers in London, to represent the case in court. Silks - or King's Counsel (KC) barristers - typically charge between £500 and £1,500 per hour. Given Ms Russell had been at Dundee Tribunal Hearing Centre over 10 days from July 16, with court sitting approximately between 10am and 4pm each day, the recent sessions could have cost the health board in the region of £30,000. However, NHS Fife is a member of the Clinical Negligence and Other Risks Indemnity Scheme (CNORIS). This is a pooling arrangement between Scottish health boards and means NHS Fife will only be required to meet the first £25,000 of the cost. The remaining bill is covered by the scheme, which is paid for through the Scottish Government's Health and Social Care Directorate that underwrites the scheme. Costs so far As of June 30, NHS Fife have accrued £258,831.31 in legal costs associated with the Sandie Peggie case. But the costs are undoubtably set to rise. Research by Murray Blackburn Mackenzie policy collective states: "The decisions which have driven the cost of this case rest formally with NHS Fife, but in practice the CLO also appears to be a relevant decision-maker of some sort, but to what extent and with what oversight from its own senior management, is very difficult to say. "Perhaps the only place it will ever be possible to unpick the full story of who decided what, when and how, will be in front of a parliamentary committee, with the questions asked direct of senior staff and board members for NHS Fife, National Services Scotland and the Scottish Government itself." In a statement published on July 18, NHS Fife said: "As of 30 June 2025, £258,831.31 in legal costs have been recorded as expenditure related to the legal services associated with this case. "NHS Fife is liable for the first £25,000 of costs associated with defending the case." Earlier this year, NHS Fife did not reveal the legal costs, stating that the health board "believed that it did not hold the figures requested as the legal fees were managed through the Central Legal Office (CLO) and National Services Scotland (NSS) who administered the CNORIS Indemnity scheme". Following criticism from the Scottish Information Commissioner, NHS Fife revealed the costs amounted to £220,465.93 up to May 2025.
