Benjamin Mendy’s recent £11 million wage claim against Manchester City highlights 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, suspended following criminal charges and a Football Association (FA) ban (on safeguarding grounds as one of the allegations concerned a minor), argued he was entitled to pay during this time. Manchester City claimed he couldn’t fulfil his role and withheld his wages.

Key findings from the tribunal included:

1. Contractual entitlement: Mendy’s contract did not permit non-payment during suspension.
2. Implied terms: No implied terms justified withholding his wages.
3. Ability 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, for the five months Mendy spent in police custody (his bail having been denied, in part, owing to previous breaches of bail conditions), non-payment was deemed justified.

This case emphasises the need for clear suspension terms in employment contracts. Specifying conditions for non-payment could have prevented the dispute. Employers should review contracts to ensure they address such scenarios to avoid similar claims.

You can also complete an online enquiry form. One of the Wollens team will contact you as soon as they are available.