Benjamin Mendy entitled to most of unpaid Manchester City wages, judge rules

The former Manchester City defender Benjamin Mendy has won a partial victory in his case against the Premier League club for more than £11m in unpaid wages, after he was charged with and acquitted of sexual offences.

The France international filed an employment tribunal claim against City last year, seeking unpaid wages and interest from when the club stopped paying him in September 2021 until the end of his contract in June 2023.

Mendy argued City had unlawfully deducted wages that he was due under his contract, saying in a witness statement that he had been promised he would be paid after he was cleared.

Quick Guide How do I sign up for sport breaking news alerts? Show Download the Guardian app from the iOS App Store on iPhone or the Google Play store on Android by searching for 'The Guardian'.

If you already have the Guardian app, make sure you’re on the most recent version.

In the Guardian app, tap the Menu button at the bottom right, then go to Settings (the gear icon), then Notifications.

Turn on sport notifications. Was this helpful? Thank you for your feedback.

City’s lawyers said Mendy was not paid because he “was not ready and able to perform his duties ... as a consequence of his own conduct”, because he was held in custody before his trial for breaching his bail conditions.

Judge Joanne Dunlop upheld part of Mendy’s case in a written ruling on Wednesday. A summary of the tribunal’s judgment stated: “The result of this decision is that Mr Mendy will be entitled to receive the majority of his unpaid salary, although not all of it.”

Dunlop said in her ruling that Mendy spent two periods in custody, covering about five months of the 22-month period of his claim and during which City were entitled to withold his pay.

When Mendy was not in custody, Dunlop found, he was “ready and willing to work” and prevented from doing so by impediments such as his suspension by the Football Association and bail conditions “which were unavoidable or involuntary on his part”.

“In those circumstances, and absent any authorisation in the contract for the employer to withhold pay, he was entitled to be paid,” Dunlop stated.

Click here to read article