Inside Sandie Peggie’s appeal over NHS Fife trans row

The 32-page document reveals the full extent of the challenge being mounted by Ms Peggie, whose dispute with NHS Fife has become one of Scotland’s most prominent legal battles over single-sex spaces and transgender rights.

The Fife nurse launched legal action after sharing a changing room with Dr Upton, a transgender woman, at Victoria Hospital in December 2023.

Ms Peggie was placed on special leave and later suspended for stating it was not appropriate for the transgender medic to be in the women’s changing room.

The nurse was handed a partial victory in December last year, upholding four harassment complaints against NHS Fife in relation to its handling of the dispute.

However, it dismissed her claims of discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation and rejected all claims against Dr Upton.

Lawyers are now seeking to overturn those dismissed claims, with the central contention being that the tribunal started from the wrong legal premise.

Ms Peggie’s lawyers argue that the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, taken alongside the Equality Act 2010 and the Supreme Court’s judgment in For Women Scotland required the hospital’s changing facilities to operate on the basis of biological sex.

The appeal states that, properly interpreted, transgender people have no right under either the Equality Act or the European Convention on Human Rights to access facilities designated for the opposite sex.

It states that NHS Fife “could not lawfully give permission” to Dr Upton to use the women’s changing room “at any time”.

The appeal argues that the tribunal “fundamentally erred” by treating the case as a conflict between competing rights rather than first determining the lawful basis on which a separate-sex changing room operates.

It states: “The ET failed to begin its analysis by identifying the lawful basis under the EA 2010 for the operation of separate-sex changing rooms in the [NHS Fife’s] A&E department in the first place.”

According to Peggie’s legal team, that alleged error runs through the entire judgment.

The appeal says that if its first ground succeeds, the tribunal’s conclusions on harassment, indirect discrimination and victimisation cannot stand.

The challenge comes against the backdrop of the Supreme Court’s ruling in For Women Scotland, which held that the terms “woman”, “man” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex.

Peggie’s lawyers argue the implications of that judgment extend directly to workplace changing facilities.

One of the most significant sections of the appeal concerns the tribunal’s treatment of Peggie’s gender-critical beliefs.

(Image: Andrew Milligan/PA)

Ground three challenges the tribunal’s finding that aspects of her conduct during an exchange with Dr Upton on Christmas Eve 2023 amounted to an impermissible manifestation of those beliefs.

The appeal claims the tribunal wrongly characterised Peggie’s assertion of what she believed were her legal rights as being akin to proselytising.

It argues the tribunal “wrongly characterised Sandie Peggie’s assertion of her right not to be subjected to unlawful harassment” as conduct “broadly similar to … proselytising”.

The appeal says that comparison was inappropriate because proselytising suggests an attempt to convert others to a particular belief.

“In all circumstances, the ET was wrong in its conclusion that [Peggie’s] expression or manifestation of her beliefs amounted to ‘hate speech’,” the document states.

Another ground focuses on NHS Fife’s refusal to guarantee that biological males, including Dr Upton, would not be permitted to use the women’s changing room.

Peggie’s lawyers argue that if the appeal tribunal accepts the earlier grounds concerning the operation of single-sex facilities, it must also conclude that NHS Fife acted unlawfully by refusing to provide such a guarantee.

The appeal contends it was reasonable for Peggie to view the board’s refusal as conduct that undermined her privacy, dignity and safety and therefore amounted to harassment.

The challenge also extends to the tribunal’s handling of Peggie’s indirect sex discrimination claim.

Ground six argues the tribunal applied the wrong legal test when it rejected the contention that a policy allowing staff to use facilities matching their gender identity placed women at a particular disadvantage.

The appeal argues that women are more likely than men to feel threatened by the presence of a biological male in a female-only space.

“It follows as a matter of logic from the fact that a substantially higher proportion of men than women commit crimes of violence, and particularly sexual violence,” the document states.

It argues the “only logical conclusion” is that biological women are more likely to perceive a threat from a “trans-identifying man”.

The appeal also raises a number of procedural complaints about how the judgment was produced.

Among them is an argument that the tribunal exceeded its legal powers when issuing corrections to the original ruling.

Peggie’s lawyers contend the tribunal “went beyond the correction of clerical mistakes” by making more substantive amendments to inaccuracies within the judgment.

The use of bogus quotes in the original judgment was blamed on an unnamed “judicial colleague” while Judge Kemp denied AI had been used.

They argue those changes should not have been made through the correction process.

Earlier this month, Peggie’s legal team announced that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had allowed the majority of the appeal to proceed.

According to her lawyers, Employment Appeal Tribunal Judge James Tayler found there were reasonable grounds for bringing 13 of the 14 grounds of appeal contained in the January notice.

One ground, which alleged apparent bias and a failure properly to carry out judicial duties, was rejected at the sift stage.

However, Peggie’s legal team said on Friday that they intend to challenge that decision before a different judge.

In a previous statement, they said: “On July 31 2026, the Employment Appeal Tribunal confirmed that Sandie Peggie’s appeal against the judgment of the employment tribunal dated December 8, 2025 should now proceed to a full appeal hearing.

“This follows a decision taken by His Honour Judge James Tayler on July 30 2026 that there are reasonable grounds for bringing 13 grounds of appeal contained in Ms Peggie’s notice of appeal dated January 19 2026.”

The appeal asks the Employment Appeal Tribunal to set aside the judgment and substitute findings that NHS Fife harassed Ms Peggie because of her sex and belief, indirectly discriminated against and victimised her, and harassed her because she rejected harassment.

The full appeal hearing is expected to take place next year.

NHS Fife has been approached for comment.