Case law update: Peggie and the Darlington Nurses

The recent judgments handed down in the cases brought by Sandie Peggie and the Darlington Nurses (both determined in the context of last year’s landmark ‘For Women’ decision) appear to have generated greater uncertainty rather than the much sought after clarity that many had hoped for.

Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife and Upton

The much-anticipated judgement in the case of Sandie Peggie v NHS Fife and Upton, was handed down on 8 December 2025. Ms Peggie, who had worked for NHS Fife for several decades, was suspended pending a disciplinary investigation following a complaint by her colleague, Dr Beth Upton, who is transgender. Ms Peggie, who worked at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, raised her concerns with her employer after meeting Dr Upton in the female changing rooms on several occasions during shifts. On one such occasion, during a night shift on 24 December 2023, an incident occurred during which Dr Upton and Ms Peggie exchanged words.

Further to this incident, Dr Upton lodged a complaint against Ms Peggie, alleging that Ms Peggie was bullying her and creating a hostile working environment as a result of her views. NHS Fife indicated that they would continue to adhere to their inclusive policy, which allowed transgender staff to utilise toilets and changing rooms consistent with their gender identity.

Ms Peggie lodged a claim with the Employment Tribunal in May 2024, against NHS Fife and Dr Upton for harassment; direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of sex and belief; and victimisation.

On 8 December, Employment Judge Kemp passed judgement, which saw Ms Peggie succeed in her harassment claim, in part, against NHS Fife. Her claims for direct and indirect discrimination; victimisation; and all claims against Dr Upton, were, however, dismissed.

In reaching this decision, the Employment Tribunal gave consideration to the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling in the For Women case, which held that for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, a woman will be legally defined on the basis of the individual’s biological sex at birth. In considering the ruling, the Tribunal considered that it was not inherently unlawful for a trans individual to be permitted to use single-sex spaces that align with their gender identity. That said, the Tribunal also considered that it was not inherently lawful to do so. It was instead, stated that a range of factors must be taken into consideration.

The original judgement has however, since been amended on two separate occasions (11 and 23 December 2025). Unfortunately, neither round of corrections has served to provide any further clarity on the substantial legal position, with the amendments only being in respect of ‘clerical mistakes, errors or omissions’ and did not materially alter the Tribunal’s findings.

It is understood that Ms Peggie will appeal the judgement.

Hutchison v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (Darlington Nurses case)

More recently, on 16 January 2026, the judgement in the case of Hutchison v County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust (commonly referred to as “the Darlington Nurses case”) was published.

The Darlington nurses case arose following a dispute at Darlington Memorial Hospital, part of the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, concerning access to single sex changing facilities. A group of 8 female nurses brought claims against their employer after the trust permitted a transgender woman to use the women’s changing room. The claimants objected to the Trust’s ‘Transitioning in the Workplace’ policy, which permitted their trans colleague to utilise the female changing rooms, a fact which they argued infringed their privacy and dignity.

The nurses raised their concerns internally through management and HR and were ultimately advised to accept the policy or to make use of separate facilities.

The panel, led by Employment Judge Sweeney, found in favour of the Claimants and concluded that the Trust’s actions amounted to harassment and indirect sex discrimination. It was held that the Trust’s application of their policy which permitted transgender employees to use facilities on the basis of their gender identity, was unlawful. It was held that in applying the policy in this manner, they had failed to strike a balance between protecting trans individuals and providing adequate alternative arrangements in order to safeguard the dignity and privacy of their female staff, and accordingly their actions in respect of the policy amounted to harassment and indirect sex discrimination of the Claimants.

However, the claims relating to the conduct of Ms Henderson (trans colleague), were not well-founded (she had done nothing wrong by acting in line with the employer’s policy) and accordingly were rejected.

Conclusion

For employers – particularly those responsible for managing single-sex spaces on a daily basis – the recent judgements appear to be irreconcilable. There is no clarity on what employers should do. Instead, the calls for the EHRC to publish their official guidance are louder than ever.

Remember that employment tribunal decisions (as these are) are not “binding” on other employment tribunals, and do not constitute a definitive statement of the law. As such, binding authority from the Employment Appeal Tribunal or other appellate courts, would be widely welcomed.

This update contains general information only and does not constitute legal or other professional advice. For further information and advice on this topic, please contact a member of our Employment team.

Douglas Strang, Legal Director: dst@bto.co.uk/ 0141 225 5271