Zac Lomax is set for a courtroom showdown with the Parramatta Eels on the eve of the NRL trials, with the superstar winger set to argue it would be a restraint of trade to block him from joining the Melbourne Storm.
The Eels have launched legal action in the NSW Supreme against Lomax after they said he refused to abide by the terms of his release.
Watch all 2026 NRL Preseason matches LIVE and ad-break free during play on FOX LEAGUE, available on Kayo Sports | New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
WHAT’S GAMBLING REALLY COSTING YOU? Set a deposit limit. For Free and confidential support call 1800 858 858 or visit gamblinghelponline.org.au.
The matter was set down for a hearing on February 12 and 13.
The Storm play Canberra in their first trial on Friday February 13, before they open their season against the Eels on March 5.
The Eels have their first trial on Sunday, February 15.
Lomax and the Eels agreed in November to terminate his contract one year into a four-year deal after he elected to chase opportunities in the proposed rebel rugby union competition R360.
When the club agreed to his release, it included a clause that Lomax not play for another NRL club before the expiry of his Eels contract at the end of 2028.
However, when R360 failed to launch and pushed back its start date until at least 2028, it left the ex-NSW and Australian representative without a club for 2026.
When last year’s losing grand finalists the Melbourne Storm expressed an interest in his services, the Eels demanded compensation in the form of a player swap or money.
The Eels proposed a player swap for Xavier Coates, Stefano Utoikamanu or Jack Howarth in exchange for Lomax being allowed to sign for Melbourne.
The Eels said in a statement on Thursday that Lomax’s legal team had “informed us in writing that he does not agree that the terms of the release can be enforced against him”.
It prompted the Eels to launch proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court in what the club said was an attempt to enforce the terms of his release.
The two parties appeared before Justice Michael Slattery on Friday afternoon as the club sought an urgent hearing with the start of the NRL trials just weeks away.
Barrister Arthur Moses SC, representing Parramatta, told the court the dispute centred around “the sanctity of the contract” and the validity of Lomax’s claim that the stipulations of the contract release represented a restraint of trade.
“The defendant, who was subject to a fixed-term contract, approached the plaintiff (the Eels) to be released from the fixed term contract on the basis that he would follow his dream of participating in the R360 competition,” Mr Moses said.
“On one view of it, that’s become a bit of a mirage and he’s sought to re-enter the NRL competition in circumstances where he entered a deed of release with the plaintiff which precludes him from being able to play with another NRL club for the duration of his fixed term contract unless he had their consent.”
Mr Moses told the court the factual issues of the case were “rather narrow”.
Lomax was represented in court on Friday by experienced silk Adam Casselden SC.
The court was told that the Eels were issuing subpoenas to the Melbourne Storm, Lomax’s manager Clinton Schifcofske and solicitor Ramy Qutami.
Discussion about this post