He also disclosed that NHS officials had privately given him a completely different running total for the tribunal from the one already published by NHS Fife.

He has given the authority until Monday November 17 to comply, warning that failure to do so could be treated as contempt of court.

The decision could force the central body to reveal more on how much taxpayers’ money is being spent on defending NHS Fife and Dr Beth Upton — including payments to Jane Russell KC, a leading London barrister.

Ms Peggie, an A&E nurse, is suing her employer and Dr Upton after she was suspended for objecting to the transgender medic’s use of the female changing room at Victoria Hospital in Kirkcaldy.

Dr Upton said they had been subjected to a transphobic “hate incident”, which saw Ms Peggie placed on special leave in December 2023 and suspended the following month. She was cleared of all misconduct allegations in July 2025.

Earlier this month, the Courier reported legal costs in the ongoing tribunal had reached £320,000, rising by £60,000 in a single month. Labour’s Dame Jackie Baillie told Holyrood the final bill could hit £1 million, not including compensation.

Ms Peggie has also lodged further legal claims against NHS Fife over the actions of three senior staff who opposed a decision by another manager to lift her suspension in March 2024. This only came to light during tribunal evidence. The board has confirmed it will provide legal representation for the three.

NHS Fife is a member of the Clinical Negligence and Other Risks Indemnity Scheme (CNORIS), a national pooling arrangement that caps the board’s direct liability at £25,000, with the rest met centrally through the Scottish Government’s Health and Social Care Directorate.

NSS’s Central Legal Office appointed Ms Russell, of Essex Court Chambers, to represent the case. King’s Counsel typically charge between £500 and £1,500 per hour.

Beth Upton’s counsel, Jane Russell KC(Image: Iain Masterton)

In early March, The Herald asked NSS for a breakdown of spending, including external counsel costs. NSS initially refused, citing exemptions under freedom of information law, including claims of commercial sensitivity.

They also argued that releasing cost details could “result [in] unwanted approaches to staff and may affect their wellbeing negatively”.

The Herald appealed on all grounds. When NSS rejected the appeal, we took the case to the Commissioner.

During Mr Hamilton’s investigation, NSS changed its legal defence twice.

In July, NHS Fife published a single top-line figure for tribunal costs up to May 31. NSS argued that because this was “otherwise available”, it no longer had to answer The Herald request.

The Commissioner rejected that argument, ruling that law requires information as held at the time of the request — in this case, March 5 — not later figures published elsewhere. He also stressed The Herald had asked for a breakdown, not just a total, and noted that the figures released by NHS Fife and withheld by NSS “are not the same”.

Although NSS dropped the claim that disclosure could put staff at risk, it later told the Commissioner it still considered there to be “a risk to the physical and mental health” of staff if more information was released.

Mr Hamilton accepted tensions around the tribunal were high but found that releasing cost information, with personal data redacted, would not meaningfully add to any risk.

For the exemption to apply, he said, “there must be some well-founded apprehension of danger, such that the prospect of harm could be regarded as a distinct possibility”.

He concluded: “The Commissioner is sensitive to the potential impact of the increased attention that may follow from disclosure of the withheld information. However, these costs relate to a high-profile and ongoing case, the details of which are in the public domain and have attracted significant media attention.

“There remains a high level of media and public interest in this case, which he expects will continue until the conclusion of the employment tribunal — and likely beyond.”

He ordered NSS to disclose most of the withheld information and explain it clearly, separating internal costs from external counsel costs, explaining why its totals differ from NHS Fife’s, clarifying the VAT position, and confirming the actual cost rather than a “book cost” if VAT has not been included.

NSS has 42 days to appeal to the Court of Session on a point of law.

Information Commissioner David Hamilton criticised NSS(Image: PA)

This ruling follows an earlier decision in which Mr Hamilton found NHS Fife had mishandled FOI requests on the tribunal costs by failing to carry out searches and wrongly relying on exemptions. He ordered the board to conduct “adequate, proportionate searches” and respond by Monday July 14. NHS Fife later published figures online, confirming it had spent £220,465.93 up to May 2025, rising to £258,831.31 by the end of June.

Last month, the Mail on Sunday reported that NHS Scotland officials had discussed “massaging” FOI responses on the case to better align with media messaging.

A communications official wrote on June 12 that they “would like to align our messaging a bit more with the media lines issued”, prompting an in-house solicitor to remind them on June 24: “It is important to remember this is a legal response in the sense it requires to comply with the statutory requirements.”

Scottish Tory shadow equalities minister Tess White said: “This is a damning verdict from the information commissioner. He has clearly had enough of the secrecy surrounding how much taxpayers’ money is being spent on this tribunal and has rightly ordered them to be fully transparent when they next respond.

“It is clear that those within the health service are determined to try and protect the reputations of those responsible for fighting this case, instead of being open with the public about their actions.

“National Services Scotland must now get their act together and confirm that they will release this information by the deadline imposed by the commissioner. A failure to do so would be disgraceful and raise further questions about what they are trying to hide.”

Jennifer Thomson, legal adviser to NHS Scotland at NSS, said: “We cannot comment until we have had an opportunity to review the Information Commissioner’s decision.”

The tribunal panel is due to deliberate on the case from Tuesday, October 14 for four days.

Ms Peggie told the tribunal she entered the changing room while experiencing a heavy period and had bled through her scrubs. When she arrived, Dr Upton was already there.

The words exchanged are disputed. Ms Peggie told the tribunal she told Dr Upton that he was a man and should not be in the female changing room. She said she was “trying to give [Dr Upton] an example of how I and other women feel”.

According to Dr Upton’s testimony, Ms Peggie said: “This was the women’s changing room and she told me that it was inappropriate for me to be in there.” Dr Upton told the tribunal the exchange left them feeling “really, really upset”.

Ms Peggie claims she faced discrimination and harassment as a result of having to share female changing facilities with a male.

NHS Fife argues that while Ms Peggie is entitled to her belief that Dr Upton is male, the way in which she confronted her colleague was unreasonable in a workplace setting, and that it was therefore reasonable she was suspended and investigated.