Thread by @tribunaltweets

Day 5 afternoon session 1 of Peggie vs NHS Board Fife and Dr Upton is expected to begin at 2pm.

This morning, previous reporting, background on the case and links to press coverage can be found on our Substack, linked below.

Our Substack page for this case: tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/peggie-vs-fi…

Abbreviations:
C/SP - Claimant, Sandy Peggie
NC - Naomi Cunningham, C’s barrister
MG - Margaret Gribbons, C’s solicitor
R/Board - first respondent, Fife Health Board
R2/DU - second respondent, Dr B Upton
JR - Jane Russel, barrister for Rs
AW - Adam Watson, solicitor for Rs

J - Employment Judge Alexander Kemp
ET - Employment Tribunal
P1, P2 - panel members
CR - changing room
AE - Accident & emergency dept
PCP - provision, criteria or practice
SM - Sex Matters
HR - Human Rights
TW - Transwoman
ED - Esther Davidson, SP's line manager

B&H - bullying and harassment
SocMe - social media
KS - Kate Searle, A&E consultant
SF - Stuart Fraser, SP’s RCN Rep
AG - Angela Glancy, headed up in SP investigation
IX - Investigation

HI - Hate Incident

People are re-entering the Tribunal room.

JR - 4 items tasked to do. 1. AW email sending formal complaint to board. Email is sent from AW to us, and all parties.
2. KS materials she has performed another search, there are 4 emails or chains. AW will put together a bundle to arrive this afternoon.
3. confirmations

JR - 1. that every time there was a Teams invite, whether there were any notes made. Made clear it's important.
J -- no response?
JR - not yet, just gone out.
Second confirmation about ED's role. R1s position is she wasn't an investigator or involved in investigation at all

JR - she received statement from Curran.
J - to be clear, subject of email SP statement says as discussed, there was also a document - who was it authored by>
JR - Louise Curran
J -her statement?
JR - yes, she is talking about her discussion with Jamie Doyle and placing on leave.

JR - hoping that confirmation that ED role was limited to receiving 2 statements.
J - did she say to LC give me a statement? It says as discussed, what was discussed? You may not be able to answer now but... the question is is ED a postman or woman, or was asking questions

JR - atm I don't know.
J - your understanding from before on instruction, was that the role wasn't a full IX but ..tell me what you understand, what was it?
JR - I understand it was to receive those statements I don't know who asked her for those statemetns

J - she may have asked?
JR - yes, it's my understanding is that she didn't
Hopefully confirmation coming.
JR - other issue, IT capabilities of R1. In short it is poss to do the searches asked for. The IT manager isn't available, but someone else can do it. If an order made, it

JR - will take a few days. Pages will need to be redacted of patient details and GDPR compliance. It would result in adjournment of this hearing.
J - thank you
NC - last point first. Not clear why there would be patient data, no redactions in anything so far.

NC - it is conversations between managers and staff.
J - lists dates
NC - the investigation may contain some small amount of information which needs redacting. Over lunch, thinking about feasibility of IT search. We don't want adjournment, so will say R1 will not be able to

NC - may I have a brief break to take instructions?
J - how long would you like?
NC - 5 mins.
J- yes.

BREAK

BACK
NC - mics in - we will be content if R1 continues the searches, ensure they find the Teams invite info of phases 1 and 2 of IX, find all of KS correspondance from email sent to all consultants there will be much, and other items to comply with Timion order

NC - clarify role of ED. Also request and order that they be in touch with us this evening and over hte weekend as they discover information. That is all we can procticably hope for.
J - anything
JR - we will comply and spoke to AW I know there are no notes on Teams, to conf

JR - role of ED and he will be doing that today. Understand opposition need asap.
J - further documents, an email from AW today with a number of attachments, do we add to bundle?
NC - yes, or we can cooperate to provide a coherent bundle?
JR - we can come early and arrange

J - there is an email that suggests an email that's not been put in the bundle in June 24
JR - complaint sent to Watson
J - I want the email from R2 to Mr Watson with the complaint.
JR - yes will get.
NC - also there is a PDF of redacted cover email and a PDF of complaint

NC - we would like a forwarded copy of AW to Sinclair-Farrow email, can remove anything sensitive.
JR - person doing this doesn't understand
NC - both the email and attachment are PDF. We need originals with it's meta data, if you summon 11th June email, forward having removed

NC - sensitive info.
J - Seems any written electronic docs relating to IX notes, whatever, notebooks .. all of it is captured by the order.
JR -manuscript comments
J - yes everything, from everyone involved in the documents. Needed over the weekend. Is that possible for Mon?

NC - if R is willing to provide info as they find it, I'd hope we could be prompt on Monday. We are squeezing time now today is lost, we can be flexible.
J - anything else?
J - there is a concern about people having time off at the weekend. We will deal with on monday

J - we can only do what we can do. We'll resume on Monday around 10 O'clock.

ENDS...

@threadreaderapp unroll please