Zac Lomax entered into preliminary contracts with R360 and the Melbourne Storm prior to being given his blessing by Parramatta, the Eels’ lawyer has told a court.
Lomax, the Eels and Storm are involved in a legal stand-off over the 26-year-old’s ability to sign with the Melbourne club for the 2026 NRL season, with the matter set to be heard in the NSW Supreme Court next week.
Watch the 2026 NRL Pre-season series plus the All-Star 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 Eels have initiated legal proceedings against Lomax, asserting that he must gain the club’s written consent before being able to sign with a rival club following his high-profile release last year.
At the time, Lomax expressed his desire to chase an opportunity in R360, but when the global rebel rugby union competition failed to launch, Lomax was left in contract limbo.
The Eels granted Lomax a release one year into his four-year deal and included a provision that he not be able to play for a rival NRL club during his contract period unless Parramatta gave its consent.
Lomax attempted to sign with the Storm, but the Eels have asked for compensation – putting forward a proposition they be given a player.
The club said Lomax signalled his intention to claim that the terms of the release were not enforceable, prompting it to launch legal action in the NSW Supreme Court.
The matter is due to be heard during a two-day hearing before Justice Francois Kunc next Thursday and Friday.
Whether the contract to release Lomax was valid and Lomax’s claim that it represented a restraint of trade are central to the case, the court was told.
Lomax’s barrister Adam Casselden SC on Tuesday told a directions hearing that the court would need to decide a third issue.
Mr Casselden said if it was determined that the restraint was valid, they would argue that the Eels had a duty to co-operate and act in good faith.
The court was previously told that the Eels had issued subpoenas to the Melbourne Storm, Lomax’s manager Clinton Schifcofske and solicitor Ramy Qutami.
Eels barrister Arthur Moses SC told the court on Tuesday that it had been discovered in the subpoenaed material that Lomax had entered into a contract with R360.
He told the court that the contract was conditional upon Lomax securing a release from the Eels.
And he said Lomax entered into the R360 agreement prior to being granted a release from the Eels.
“What we do know now, Your Honour, from documents that have been produced under subpoena, is that he entered into a provisional contract with R360 conditional upon him securing a release from the plaintiff (the Eels), prior to securing that release from the plaintiff,” Mr Moses told the court.
Mr Moses also told the court that prior to the Storm approaching the Eels for their written agreement, Melbourne entered into a preliminary contract agreement with Lomax.
“What we also know from the documents that have been subpoenaed is that prior to the Melbourne Storm approaching Parramatta for discussions to get its consent – that he be able to play for the Melbourne Storm in the competition this year – they had entered into, in effect, a contract,” he said.
Get all the latest news, highlights and analysis delivered straight to your inbox with Fox Sports NRL Sportmail. Sign up now!!!
Mr Moses said it had been discovered that a preliminary version of the agreement had been placed on the NRL portal prior to the Storm approaching Parramatta.
The court was told that Lomax appeared to be set to argue that the Eels had acted unreasonably or not in good faith by not giving their blessing for him to move to the Storm.
Mr Moses said if that was the case, the Melbourne Storm may be joined in the proceedings, or club chairman Matt Tripp might be required to give evidence.
“What now appears to be a third issue in the case, Your Honour, is that the defendant will assert that the plaintiff (the Eels) has unreasonably, or not in good faith, withheld its consent,” Mr Moses said.
“Now, if that is the case, we were hoping not to have to bring in another party to the proceedings, but we would have to join the Melbourne Storm.”
Mr Moses told the court that would raise questions about whether the Storm had acted in good faith during their discussions.
“Of particular concern have been documents that have been produced that demonstrate that they have adopted the stance that this was just going to be a fait accompli in respect of this matter and it was going to happen regardless of the position put by Parramatta,” Mr Moses said.
Fifita speaks at Deadly Choices launch | 04:57
The court was told on Thursday that Lomax had also subpoenaed the Eels about internal communications about potential player recruitment.
Mr Casselden said his client wanted the matter to proceed next week in an effort to secure his future.
“The season starts on the first of March. Mr Lomax has been co-operative once the dispute arose,” Mr Casselden said.
“He’s an elite athlete, he needs some certainty about what his future looks like. And the widening of the claim which we’ve been discussing this morning shouldn’t delay the hearing all that much.”
Justice Kunc said unless there was an application to vacate the hearing dates, it would proceed next week.
The matter will return to court on Friday.
The Eels are due to kick off their season against the Storm in a potentially spiteful clash on Thursday, March 5.
Discussion about this post