Q&A Today at 2PM
Time to get into the weeds!
I’m looking forward to our conversations at 2:00PM. As usual, you guys have superb queries. I’m going to do my best to do you justice. Here are the top most liked questions by Knowing Ius readers:
Daff asks:
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts about trade unions and this topic and whether they aren’t living up to their role on this matter? I definitely feel my workplace (large charity) is a hostile environment for people with gender critical views and I’m unconvinced my union would be much better.
TJ asks:
What is the state of the employment tribunal process in the UK? We have 3 similar tribunals and produced 3 different results, with 2 going to appeal. Is legislation being applied evenly across ETs?
Helen asks:
IIRC the Darlington judgment found that the employer had harassed the nurses by allowing Rose to use the female changing room while finding that Rose personally had not harassed them by doing so. A similar finding was made in Peggie, which found against NHS Fife but not against Beth on harassment. How unusual is this and is it a serious flaw in both judgments? Is it a valid defence for the trans employee that their employer gave permission and they merely acted in accordance with this?
Kathryn asks:
My question is around the article 8 Human Rights Act. Many Trans groups appear to believe this gives them unfettered access to the opposite sexes facilities and services. It doesn’t seem to understand the importance of others rights and the conflict of allowing one group a hierarchy over sex based provisions. Or am I missing something here?
Dusty asks:
If a future government wanted to remove 'gender reassignment' as a protected characterisitc what are the practicalities of doing that?
This doesn’t cover even half the comments I’ve received for this Q&A. These are just the ones I’m choosing to highlight. I’m going to do my level best to respond to you all.
See you tomorrow!
I'm looking forward to being on later. In case the subject comes up, it could be useful to have the text of my complaint.
To Glasgow President 24 December 2025
Dear Sirs
I am writing to register a complaint of judicial misconduct against Judge Alexander (Sandy) Kemp in respect of his including patently false references to case law in his written judgement in the case of Sandy Peggie v NHS Fife and Another, dated 11 December 2025. These references can be easily ascertained from the Certificates of Correction that have been issued by your own office, of which there are two to date, although I note that the second corrected judgement is not in conformity with the second certificate, which raises the possibility of a third.
I stress that my complaint is purely in relation to the issuing of false written statements by Judge Kemp, and not with the substance of the decision made by the tribunal which he chaired; I am aware that the latter is for any appeal to determine in due course. Purely and simply, my concern is that for any judge to issue words in quotation marks that are not contained in the previous case for which a reference is given belongs to the highest level of judicial misconduct.
Suggestions have been made in the Press that the falsehoods may have resulted from careless use of some form of artificial intelligence, but that can be no possible excuse. Any solicitor who did something similar in professional practice could expect immediate disqualification for life. I held office as a part time tribunal chair for eighteen years, and took the greatest care in ensuring total accuracy in every judgement I issued. One was always aware that what one issued would be subject to scrutiny and possibly an appeal, perhaps to the highest level.
As a separate matter, I note that both certificates have purportedly been issued in terms of section 67 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, which for convenience I quote in full:
Correction of clerical mistakes and accidental slips
67.—(1) The Tribunal may at any time correct any clerical mistake or other accidental slip or omission in any order, judgment or other document produced by the Tribunal.
(2) If a correction is made under this rule, any published version of the document must also be corrected.
(3) If any document is corrected by the Tribunal under this rule, a copy of the corrected version, approved by the presiding member of that Tribunal or in accordance with rule 61 (absence of presiding member), must be sent to all the parties.
(4) If any document is corrected by a member of staff in accordance with rule 7(1) (delegation to staff) and this rule, a copy of the corrected version, approved by that member of staff, must be sent to all the parties.
It is by no means clear that the certificates of correction in this case have been competently issued. They go far beyond the ordinary meaning of the words “any clerical mistake or other accidental slip or omission”. It is a very serious matter for so-called “corrections” to venture into such substantial matters as are found here, in one case quoting a paragraph that does not exist, in another deleting a word and substituting its opposite.
Yours faithfully
Ewan G Kennedy
Reply 5 January 2026
Dear Mr Kennedy,
Your complaint about Judge Kemp (24 December 2025) has been referred to the President, Judge Walker. She has asked me to respond as follows:
Your complaint relates to errors that have been made in a published judgment, and specifically about the inclusion of misquotations from other judgments. Such errors are, of course, regrettable. I have considered the Guide to Judicial Conduct ( revised 2023). I do not consider that it supports a proposition that making a mistake in a judicial decision, whether an error of law or an error of the kind that has been identified in this judgment, can be - without more - deemed judicial misconduct. Where an error has been made in judicial decision, that is properly addressed through an appeal and not by a complaint of judicial misconduct.
I am aware of the widespread public speculation that Judge Kemp has improperly used generative AI in the writing of this judgment. I can confirm that Employment Judges in Scotland are subject to the Guidance issued by the Lady Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals here and that they have been made aware of the terms of that Guidance. Having made enquiries, I am satisfied that Judge Kemp did not use generative AI in drafting the judgment. It is clear from my enquiries that the source of the erroneous quotes from Forstater and Ashers was an exchange of correspondence between Judge Kemp and a judicial colleague.
Judge Kemp, of course, acknowledges that he is ultimately responsible for the content of the judgment and he has taken steps to correct the errors promptly when he became aware of them. For the avoidance of doubt, the certificates of correction were not issued by my office, nor by the Judicial Office, but they were issued by the Tribunal secretariat on the directions of Judge Kemp.
Thank you for taking the time to write to me about this matter. However, for the reasons set out above, your complaint is dismissed under paragraph 6.1 (b) of the relevant Policy.
Yours sincerely,
Sandra Muir
SPS to the President
HMCTS | Employment Tribunals (Scotland) |The Glasgow Tribunals Centre|3 Atlantic Quay| 20 York Street |Glasgow | G2 8GT
Phone: 0141 223 7110
e-mail: glasgow.president@justice.gov.uk
Web: www.gov.uk/hmcts
(Working Days Monday – Wednesday)
I've just rejoined for this after a time away. Very much looking forward to it. I'm wondering if any action can be taken against one J Maugham for bringing the profession of barristering into disrepute as he's constantly misrepresenting legal judgments.