Ex-Manchester City footballer Benjamin Mendy given more time to clear tax debt
Mr Mendy was given more time to settle the debt after the High Court was told a buyer was now in place for the footballer’s house near Macclesfield.
Former Manchester City defender Benjamin Mendy has been given more time to clear a six-figure tax debt.
The High Court previously heard HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) is seeking a bankruptcy order against the footballer over a bill previously said to be around £800,000.
The tax body sought the order again at a hearing on Monday before a specialist insolvency judge.
However, Mr Mendy was given more time to settle the debt after the court was told a buyer was now in place for the footballer’s house near Macclesfield, Cheshire.
The short hearing in London was told the property was being previously marketed for £5 million but is now being sold for £3.8 million – with the sale expected to complete in eight weeks.
“He wants to get rid of this debt as quickly as he possibly can,” Louis Doyle KC, for Mr Mendy, said.
He continued: “If we get 10 weeks down the line and it is still not sold, I accept I might have a very different fight on my hands.”
The court also heard Mr Mendy is bringing legal action against his former club after Manchester City stopped paying him when he was charged with rape in 2021.
The footballer was subsequently cleared of rape and attempted rape at Chester Crown Court.
Mr Doyle said that Mr Mendy being made bankrupt could have a “potentially catastrophic impact” on his claim which is due to go into mediation later this year.
At the previous hearing in October, Mr Doyle said Mr Mendy was prepared to pay £20,000 a month to HMRC from his salary from his new employer – French club Lorient.
However, on Monday, the court was told these payments had not been made, in part because the footballer had not received a bonus he was expecting from the new club.
Granting a 12-week adjournment to allow for the sale of Mr Mendy’s house, Judge Joseph Curl KC said: “Although I am troubled by the failure to pay the £20,000 per month and that this is now a fourth adjournment, I am persuaded that I should give what Mr Doyle described as ‘the benefit of the doubt’.”