{"id":288836,"date":"2025-07-24T20:50:11","date_gmt":"2025-07-24T20:50:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/288836\/"},"modified":"2025-07-24T20:50:11","modified_gmt":"2025-07-24T20:50:11","slug":"key-points-in-sandie-peggie-v-nhs-fife-as-lawyer-row-erupts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/288836\/","title":{"rendered":"Key points in Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife as lawyer row erupts"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\n  However, we also heard concerns that suggestions Dr Beth Upton, the transgender medic at the centre of this case, was a &#8220;troublemaker&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Here are the key points from today&#8217;s employment tribunal hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Upton &#8216;troublemaker&#8217; claim not investigated<\/p>\n<p>\n  The tribunal heard that Ms Peggie had raised concerns about Dr Upton&#8217;s previous conduct, particularly that the medic had kept logs of incidents with other colleagues.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  It was put to Ms Glancey, who was tasked with investigating the complaints internally, that there was &#8220;evidence that Dr Upton was a known troublemaker and a bully&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Cunningham, acting on behalf of Ms Peggie, asked whether these allegations should have been investigated further.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  <strong>Read more:\u00a0<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Glancey rejected that she was &#8220;unfair&#8221; to Ms Peggie by not doing so and she argued that her specific role was to investigate the incident that occurred with Dr Upton on Christmas Eve.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  The barrister said Ms Peggie&#8217;s &#8220;troublemaker&#8221; claim against Dr Upton &#8220;flatly contradicts&#8221; the junior doctor when they said they had no previous incidents in the workplace.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Glancey said she could not comment on this.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Dr Upton was able to alter interview notes<\/p>\n<p>\n  The tribunal heard that Dr Upton asked whether they could make editorial changes to the interview notes that Ms Glancey had taken in May 2024.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Glancey said this was the first time she was aware that a witness had asked to review notes, but she said it was permitted for this to happen.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  She rejected Ms Cunningham&#8217;s claim that there had been a &#8220;deliberate attempt to create a misleading paper trail&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Glancey arranged to meet with Dr Upton to go through the transcripts to discuss the parts the medic disputed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Later, HR advisor Anne Hamilton is asked whether it was appropriate for a meeting to take place &#8220;in private&#8221; between Dr Upton and Ms Glancey.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Hamilton admitted it was &#8220;less than ideal&#8221; that this happened, but said it may have been done to expedite the process.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Pronouns row<\/p>\n<p>\n  A number of rows erupted between the legal team&#8217;s during Thursday&#8217;s hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  The first occurred after Ms Russell KC objected to Dr Upton being referred to as &#8220;he&#8221; by Ms Cunningham.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  The NHS Fife lawyer argued that it had caused the witness, Ms Glancey, to use the term &#8220;he&#8221; in her evidence, quickly following it up with &#8220;sorry, she&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Cunningham has consistently referred to Dr Upton using he\/him pronouns throughout this whole tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  <strong>Read more:\u00a0<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Russell stepped in today, however, stating that she had checked the equal treatment benchmark from May 2025 which agreed counsel&#8217;s should use the preferred pronouns or use gender neutral &#8216;they&#8217; to avoid &#8220;offence&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  She said: &#8220;I am concerned about the fairness of the proceedings with Ms Cunningham&#8217;s misgendering which is creating a hostile environment for the witnesses and is confusing them.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  She said the witnesses were not used to hearing the terms he\/him used when discussing Dr Upton.\n<\/p>\n<p>  Judge accused of &#8216;asymmetry&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>\n  Not even half an hour later and the row between the pair was reignited.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Naomi Cunningham had suggested that there were attempts to punish Ms Peggie because the nurse &#8220;was guilty of heresy&#8221; by maintaining that Dr Upton is a man.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Russell strongly interjected. She said it was not heresy and was merely &#8220;equal treatment&#8221;.\u00a0\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  She said: &#8220;Dr Upton is not a man. For Women Scotland doesn&#8217;t say so. I am very concerned about the latitude being given to Ms Cunningham to be so offensive in court&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  That was not the end of the row though.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Employment Judge Sandy Kemp said Ms Cunningham appeared to suggest that Ms Russell was involved in that heresy.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  In a shocking exchange, Ms Cunningham then said she was &#8220;concerned&#8221; about a perceived &#8220;asymmetry&#8221; in the tribunal&#8217;s treatment of both legal sides.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  She said:\u00a0\u201cOne aspect of my claimant\u2019s case is she has been treated as a heretic deserving of punishment &#8211; heresy here is shorthand for someone who doesn\u2019t believe in and won\u2019t play lip service to the gender identity belief system.\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  \u201cThat is not a novel or fanciful idea.\u201d\n<\/p>\n<p>\n  Ms Russell argued Judge Kemp had not treated one side more fairly than the other, with the judge ordering Ms Cunningham to continue her cross-examination.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"However, we also heard concerns that suggestions Dr Beth Upton, the transgender medic at the centre of this&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":288837,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4316],"tags":[105,4348,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-288836","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-healthcare","8":"tag-health","9":"tag-healthcare","10":"tag-uk","11":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/114910188305898477","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288836","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=288836"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288836\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/288837"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=288836"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=288836"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=288836"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}