Case 2411709/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Mendy v Manchester City Football Club Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411709/2023
- Decision date
- 6 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Mendy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant's unauthorised deductions from wages claim succeeded in part. The respondent had withheld wages after the claimant was remanded in custody and later while he was subject to an FA suspension and bail conditions. The claim concerned basic wages only, not bonuses, image rights or other payments.
For the periods when the claimant was not in custody, the Tribunal found that he was ready and willing to work and was prevented from doing so by impediments that were unavoidable or involuntary on his part, including the FA suspension and bail conditions. For the periods when he was remanded in custody, the Tribunal found that his inability to perform the contract was in part due to his own breach of bail conditions, so the respondent was entitled to withhold pay for those periods.
The Tribunal gave judgment in principle only. The parties were to agree the figures payable for the successful periods, and no pre-judgment interest was available on the unauthorised deductions award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unauthorised deductions from wages claim succeeded in part. Deductions for 8 January 2022 to 29 December 2022 and 18 January 2023 to 30 June 2023 were found to contravene s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996; deductions for 1 September 2021 to 7 January 2022 and 30 December 2022 to 17 January 2023 were not. The claimant withdrew the part of the claim relating to the period after 30 June 2023. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.13 Employment Rights Act 1996
- ready and willing to work
- common law doctrine
- Burns principle
- Halstead v Paymentshield Group Holdings Ltd
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.