Benjamin Mendy’s recent £11 million wage claim against Manchester City raises critical employment law issues.
The case focused on whether withholding Mendy’s wages during his suspension between September 2021 and June 2023 amounted to an unlawful deduction which Man City should repay.
Mendy was suspended following criminal charges and a Football Association ban on safeguarding grounds, as one of the allegations concerned a minor. Mendy argued he was entitled to pay during this time. Manchester City claimed he couldn’t fulfil his role while suspended and withheld his wages.
Key findings from the tribunal included:
1. Able to work
The tribunal found that Mendy was ‘ready and willing’ to work.
He was only ‘unable’ to work because of the FA suspension which was, applying Gregg v Northwest Anglia NHS Trust, an “unavoidable impediment,” so wages should have been paid.
However, non-payment was justified for the time he spent in police custody. This was a period of 5 months, his bail having been denied due to previous breaches of bail conditions.
2. Contractual entitlement
Mendy’s contract didn’t permit non-payment during suspension.
3. Implied terms
No implied terms justified withholding his wages.
This case emphasises the need for detailed employment contracts and clear suspension terms. Specifying conditions for non-payment could have prevented the dispute. We recommend that you review contracts to ensure they address such scenarios to avoid similar claims. Our friendly team at Hunter Law is here to help!
If you enjoyed this blog then perhaps you’d like to sign up to our monthly newsletter. We’ll keep you updated on what’s new in employment law.
The team at Hunter Law is here for you. We can handle your HR issues, finesse your policies, and keep you up-to-date on evolving legislation. Please get in touch with our legal team, we’d love to help.
