Employment judge Sandy Kemp has faced significant backlash since the judgment was published on December 8, amid claims it contained made-up quotes.

There has also been speculation that artificial intelligence (AI) may have been used in compiling the 312-page ruling, however the Judicial Office has refused to comment on the matter.

The lengthy judgment document found the health board harassed Ms Peggie on four accounts but her other claims, including victimisation and discrimination under the Equality Act 2010, were dismissed.

All claims made against transgender colleague Dr Beth Upton were also dismissed by the tribunal panel.

Ms Peggie was suspended as an A&E nurse at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy after she complained about sharing a changing room with Dr Upton on Christmas Eve 2023.

In the second certificate of correction, Mr Kemp corrects more “clerical mistake(s), error(s) or omission(s)” contained within the judgment.

Read more:

In one correction, the term “male” is substituted to “female” to clarify that the tribunal panel would define a trans man as a person “assigned female sex at birth who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment” in the context of a transition to male.

Many of the changes correct errors to the quoting of different cases cited by the judge, including the reference to the word “man” being changed to “claimant”.

In quoting the For Women Scotland judgment in the Supreme Court, which clarified the term woman under equalities law, the judgment previously left out the term “trans” in describing a woman.

It quoted the landmark ruling as stating: “Such women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users.”

The correction adds the term “trans” after “such”.

Gender critical group Not All Gays Ireland had also complained to the tribunal panel that their name had been quoted incorrectly to read ‘Not For Gays’ – significantly changing the meaning.

Here’s the new certificate of correction issued this evening: pic.twitter.com/nnrvNwM7xv

— Rebecca McCurdy (@_RebeccaMcCurdy) December 23, 2025

However, judge Sandy Kemp also corrected this error in the updated judgment document.

Michael Foran, associate professor of Law at Oxford University, said the latest revisions were an “unprecedented use of a power expressly confined to amending clerical mistakes”.

He said: “There is case law confirming that this power cannot be used to make substantive amendments to the judgment or to correct errors in citation of authorities.”

But he said it was “most concerning” that there had been an attempt to use the power to “remove quotations suspected of being fabricated”.

“There remain outstanding questions about how these false quotes made it into the judgment in the first place,” he said, adding it was “unsatisfactory” to present them as “mere typographical errors”.

Read more:

The Scottish Tories have said the judgment, and subsequent corrections, are “utterly astonishing”.

Tess White, the equalities spokeswoman for the party, said: “Given that this has been snuck out just before Christmas, serious questions still need to be answered as to how so many mistakes were made in the initial judgment.

“This will only raise fears among women and girls that their rights and safety are not being properly upheld.

“It is time for John Swinney to issue a directive to all public bodies to follow the clear ruling earlier this year from the Supreme Court, to avoid the potential for more confusing judgments in potential future cases.”

The Judicial Office has been asked for comment.

Earlier corrections, made on December 11, fixed references to a 2021 case by gender critical campaigner Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters against the Centre for Global Development Europe.

The judgment originally stated: There are different protected characteristics under the act but there is nothing stated specifically within the act itself, or the court’s decision, that one protected characteristic takes precedence over any other.

“In Forstater v CDG Europe and others UKEAT/0105/20 the Employment Appeal Tribunal had emphasised that: ‘It is important to bear in mind that the [Equality Act 2010] does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics’.”

But after Ms Forstater and her legal team warned the quote did not exist, it was amended to: “This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA. Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.”

It added: “We consider that quotation provides support for the proposition that the Equality Act 2010 does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics.”

Ms Peggie announced she will appeal the judgment.