And speaking of testing circumstances brings me to the case of Mendy v Manchester City Football Club Limited 2024, in which the Employment Tribunal considered whether an employee’s unlawful deduction of wages for periods where he was “unavoidably” unable to work was lawful. Strap in — this isn’t your usual case history.

Mr Mendy was employed by Manchester City Football Club in July 2017 as a professional football player on a fixed term until June 2023. His contract stated his basic wage of £6,000,000.00 per year as well as various significant bonuses to be payable relating to the number of matches Mr Mendy appeared in. 

In October 2020, Mr Mendy hosted a number of parties where he was subsequently arrested in November 2020 for allegations of rape in relation to activities during his party. He was initially released with no charge or bail conditions, with investigations pending.

On 31 December 2020, Mr Mendy hosted a New Year's Eve party, followed by another on 1 January 2021, lasting into the early hours of 2 January. He was arrested on 5 January after allegations from a different complainant regarding the second party. Mr Mendy was released on conditional bail and required to stay home every night unless traveling for work and was restricted from having guests, with specific exceptions.

Between January and August 2021, Mr Mendy breached his bail conditions on numerous occasions by hosting and attending various parties.

In August 2021, Mr Mendy was arrested again following allegations of rape and held for questioning. He was subsequently charged with multiple offences and held in policy custody. Until this point, the Club were unaware of Mr Mendy’s previous arrests and allegations, and so suspended him from playing for the team. Mr Mendy sought bail but was refused due to the nature of the offence, the repeated allegations, and numerous instances of broken bail conditions.

During this time, Mr Mendy was also suspended by the Football Association as a precautionary measure and for safeguarding purposes as one of the complainants was 17 years old. The suspension was to remain in place until after the end of Mr Mendy’s fixed-term employment with the Club. 

After consideration, in September 2021, the Club informed Mr Mendy that he would not be receiving any further pay until he was “ready and able” to carry out his contractual duties. This meant that Mr Mendy would not be paid for the remainder of his contract with the Club. 

In January 2022, Mr Mendy was released on bail on the conditions that he not enter the Greater Manchester area unless for his employment. He continued to breach his bail conditions and further allegations were made until he was arrested again in December 2022 and remained in custody until January 2023. Mr Mendy was released on bail once again but was now prevented from entering the Greater Manchester area at all, regardless of his employment commitments.

In June 2023, following the end of Mr Mendy’s employment, he was found not guilty of all substantive charges.

Mr Mendy then filed a claim of unlawful deduction of wages to the Employment Tribunal.

The claim was successful. The ET found that Mr Mendy was entitled to recover wages for the periods when he was not in custody but unable to play due to the FA suspension and bail conditions which were deemed involuntary on his part. However, the ET upheld the Club's right to withhold pay for the time that Mr Mendy spent in custody, citing his inability to perform contractual duties during that time. 

The amount of compensation owed to Mr Mendy will be determined at a later hearing.

This case highlights key legal principles regarding wage deductions and employee suspensions, particularly in situations where an employee is unable to work due to external legal restrictions. It establishes that employers cannot withhold wages when an employee’s absence is involuntary and beyond their control. However, it also affirms that employers are within their rights to withhold pay when an employee is in custody and therefore unable to fulfill their contractual duties. This case underscores the importance of having clear and well-defined contractual terms outlining how pay will be handled during periods of suspension or legal disputes.