In both cases, the health boards were accused of harassment, victimisation and discrimination. But the judges were in different directions in their conclusions.
Ms Peggie had a partial win against NHS Fife, with the judgment published in December concluding the nurse had been harassed on four counts.
All of her other claims were dismissed.
Meanwhile, the health trust in Darlington was accused of harassment, discrimination and victimisation.
In the judgment published on Friday, the nurses won their harassment case – and the judge found that they had faced indirect discrimination by when the trust allowed a transgender colleague to use a female changing room.
Read more:
Transgender medic Dr Beth Upton, a junior doctor at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy, Fife, was found not to have harassed, victimised or discriminated against Ms Peggie, while judges in Newcastle reached the same conclusions against transgender nurse Rose Henderson at the Darlington Memorial Hospital.
So what are the key nuances between the two judgments?
Supreme Court
These cases could not have been assessed without considering the For Women Scotland judgment in the Supreme Court on the definition of a woman.
The April 2025 judgment found that under the Equality Act 2010, the terms “women”, “sex” and “man” were explicitly linked to biological sex, leading to significant ramifications on access to single-sex spaces.
While the UK Government has yet to publish or sign-off on guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), it states single-sex spaces should be provided for on the basis of biological sex.
In the Peggie and Darlington cases, the Supreme Court judgment was heavily considered, but the influence it had over the tribunal rulings were significantly different.
In the Peggie case, employment judge Sandy Kemp and his tribunal panel interpreted the Supreme Court ruling as not making it inherently unlawful for a transgender woman to use the female changing rooms at work.
Equally, it stated the Supreme Court ruling did not, however, make it inherently lawful.
The four counts of harassment by NHS Fife related to failing to revoke the permission for Dr Upton to use the changing room on an interim basis while different working patterns were arranged, taking an unreasonable length of time to investigate, making reference to patient care allegations and instructing her not to discuss the case.
Ms Peggie’s legal team intend to appeal, arguing the ruling was incompatible with the judgment in the UK’s apex court.
Read more:
Mr Kemp also did not consider that the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, which has provisions as to the toilet and changing rooms at work, assisted in constructing the Equality Act.
The Peggie judgment stated there had not been a “hierarchy of rights” created by the Supreme Court judgment, whereby the protected characteristics of a sex was placed above the protection of gender reassignment.
“What it did was to define the terms, not how the protected characteristic of sex was to be assessed in relation to other protected characteristics where they are applied,” the judgment said.
In significant contrast, the Darlington ruling is clear on the Supreme Court ruling. It follows on the basis that sex is defined explicitly by biology and therefore female changing rooms should be single-sex.
The Darlington judgment described the complaints of harassment as “well founded”, adding that by requiring the female nurses to share a changing room with a “biological male trans woman… the [health trust] engaged in unwanted conduct related to sex and gender reassignment which had the effect of violating the dignity of the claimants”.
Judges based this argument specifically around the Supreme Court judgment – a clear nuance with the Peggie case.
The judgment stated that the Darlington hospital’s policy to allow trans colleagues to change with female colleagues was “not lawful”, and clearly refers to the Workplace Regulations of 1992.
It also found women were at “no greater risk” in changing rooms with the presence of trans colleagues.
No harassment from trans colleagues
In both the Peggie and Darlington cases, tribunal judges dismissed complaints made against the transgender doctors.
The eight Darlington nurses complained about their transgender colleague – Rose Henderson’s – conduct in the changing room. They claimed harassment however the tribunal panel found these claims were “unfounded” and therefore dismissed.
“Rose was simply doing what the Trust permitted Rose to do, to act as, and to be treated as a trans woman which for all intents and purposes meant regarding Rose as a woman,” the panel said.
“Whether Rose ought to have made more insight into the effect on female colleagues of having to change to their underwear in the presence of a biological male is another matter.”
The judging panel concluded the perception that Henderson was “staring or taking longer than normal” was a symptom of a biological male being in such close proximity, with the anxiety and concerns from women heightening these fears.
While Dr Upton was also found not to have harassed Ms Peggie in the NHS Fife case, the reasoning by employment judge Sandy Kemp and his tribunal panel differ.
Judge Kemp was clear that some of Ms Peggie’s comments – referring to chromosomes and an alleged link to transgender prison policy – amounted to “harassment” against Dr Upton, and said the nurse had clear “breached the privacy” of her medical colleague.
How will that impact the appeal?
The legal team for Ms Peggie has confirmed it will appeal the judgment against NHS Fife and following the Darlington ruling, the nurse said that has strengthened her determination to have it overturned.
However, the judgments have no baring on each other so it technically does not compel the tribunal judge or the appeal court to alter its judgment.
The Judicial Office has published certificates of correction to alter aspects of the lengthy document to fix “errors, mistakes and omissions” but it seems significantly unlikely there will be any changes to the judgment conclusions.
It is for the appeals court to determine whether to uphold Ms Peggie’s legal challenge, and while there is no legal rule requiring them to consider the Darlington case, the high-profile nature of the case makes it more likely.