One sliding door moment could tip the scales. That is why it matters that Supreme Court justices approach equity seriously and are not swayed by even the loudest of drumbeats. Especially now, after Peter V’landys, the NRL’s Commander-In-Chief and self-proclaimed custodian, along with national coach Kevin Walters, have ventured into territory that invites the Eels’ case to be nuked or trimmed down.
As an Eels supporter of more than 45 years, disappointment barely covers it. I can’t recall ever feeling this disillusioned with the game’s leadership.
For months, V’landys assumed near-biblical authority, publicly championing tougher new anti-tampering laws for contract sanctity, player loyalty over R360 money grabs, and ten-year bans for any player who entered into agreements with R360.
Court discovery documents have been revealing. They shows Zac Lomax entered into a provisional contract with R360 prior to his release from the Eels. Then, after R360 collapsed, he entered into another NRL contract with the Storm, which was officially uploaded before the Eels’ consent and in breach of the release terms. Those matters are capable of supporting an inference of a fait accompli and bad faith.
Against that backdrop, V’landys’ apparent backflips, and the willingness to look the other way, is striking.
Prima facie, the case initially seemed simple. Lomax wanted out early to leave the NRL and play rugby union with R360. The Eels agreed to a conditional release on strict and express terms that were clear, lawyered, made in good faith, and registered. If he wanted back into the NRL, he needed the Eels’ consent. That was the deal. Everything was by the book.
The restraint was not designed to punish him arbitrarily. It was designed to protect the Eels from a very real and foreseeable risk: losing a contracted marquee player for nothing, only to see him immediately resurface at a rival club. That is a textbook legitimate business interest.
The uncomfortable truth is this case is not a slam dunk. That likely explains why, after weeks of radio silence assessing where the case sits, the game’s regulator weighed in to help frame the public narrative.
The NSW Exception and the Two Limbs
In Australia, restraints of trade do not live solely in contract law. They sit firmly in the courts of equity. The question is not simply what does the contract say, but whether it is fair to enforce the restraint in these circumstances.
NSW is different. Unlike all other states, its courts have the power to read down or trim restraints. A restraint that is too broad or unfairly applied can be narrowed, modified, or set aside altogether. A three-year exclusion is therefore not immune from scrutiny.
Under the Restraints of Trade Act 1976 (NSW), the Supreme Court may uphold or read down a restraint only if two limbs are satisfied:
- the restraint protects a legitimate business interest and goes no further than is reasonably necessary to protect that interest; and
- enforcement of the restraint is in the public interest.
V’landys and Walters did not merely support Lomax. They fired missiles at both limbs underpinning the Eels’ case.
“Look, it’s always been my view to keep our best players,” V’landys told Code sport yesterday in a passionate defence of Lomax.
“I’m looking at it in two ways. Firstly, Zac is a human being and secondly, as far as rugby league is concerned, my job is to have the best players playing rugby league,” directly engaging the public-interest limb.
“We all make mistakes. He’s made a mistake in thinking, but let’s not crucify the guy.”
“Zac went down a different path, but at the same time, don’t over-penalise him,” implicitly cautioning against an overly punitive restraint.
Walters echoed that position. On a nuclear megaphone.
“I bet Zac Lomax is playing in the NRL this year,” Walters said on his Inside Ball podcas dated 4 February.
“Is it fair on them (Parramatta Eels) to say to Zac Lomax you cannot play in the NRL ...(but) it’s a restriction of trade."
“This guy has a timeline of his official capacity to earn money."
“Contracts don’t mean anything. I had a contract with the Broncos (when Walters was dismissed in 2024). I didn’t get paid out. I got paid nowhere near the amount I was owed."
“Yes, Lomax asked to leave. He could go back to the Eels but they don’t want him."
“The clubs don’t care about players, all the time they are getting them on the players’ market."
“I’m defending Zac Lomax (right) to play the game."
“Zac Lomax will be playing for the Melbourne Storm ... but he won’t be playing in round 1 against the Eels."
The good news is none of this decides the case. But in NSW, it is not irrelevant either.
The Central Plank
The case may hinge on a narrow but decisive window — likely sometime in December 2025 — from the moment R360 delayed its launch to the point at which Lomax is proven on the evidence to have committed to the Storm.
If Lomax first approached the Eels seeking to return, but was rejected, as claimed by his camp, it could be problematic. Equity courts may be reluctant to enforce a restraint that effectively says we do not want you and you cannot work at the same time. In that scenario, a three-year restraint running to 31 October 2028 may begin to look punitive rather than protective and could be trimmed or other relief granted.
If, however, Lomax first committed to the Storm, the ground shifts the other way. That would point towards bad faith, a breach of the release agreement, and an attempt to present the Eels with a fait accompli. Equity does not generally protect parties who seek to have it both ways.
Discovery materials points in that direction, as does Lomax’s provisional R360 contract entered into prior to his release.
It also remains an open question whether Lomax was acting in good faith when the alleged return to the Eels was raised, or whether it followed a familiar pattern. That question should not be understated. Under Jason Ryles, the Eels have demonstrated flexibility for short-term arrangements such as Jonah Pezet’s one-year deal, and second chances for players who have strayed, such as Bailey Simonsson.
In the end, it may all come down to proof of who moved first.
That is the fork in the road. And whatever the surrounding noise, equity will not be distracted by spin or sideshow. It will ask whether the restraint protects a legitimate business interest, or whether it operates to punish a player who, on one view, had nowhere else to go.
Strip everything else away, and that is the question that matters.
Note: This piece is based on informal discussions and spitballing with an experienced lawyer practising in restraints, equity and contract law. It is speculative opinion only and not legal advice. The analysis may change as further discovery and evidence emerges.
LOMAX TIMELINE
BACKGROUND
• 02 Apr 2024 — Lomax granted early release from Dragons (2025–26)
• 16 Apr 2024 — Signs 4-year deal with Eels (2025–28)
R360 / CONDITIONAL RELEASE PHASE
• July–Nov 25 — Signs provisional R360 contract, conditional on Eels release
• July–Aug 25 — Requests a release from the Eels
• 15 Oct 2025 — ARLC announces 10-year R360 bans on players with R360 agreements
• 16 Nov 2025 — Eels grant release, registered with NRL
• 19 Nov 2025 — Lomax agents cut ties with R360
• 29 Nov 2025 — R360 delays, announce launch in 2028
RUGBY UNION FALLBACK OPTIONS
• 02 Dec 2025 — Meets Western Force
• 12 Dec 2025 — Rugby Australia confirms interest
• 18 Dec 2025 — Super Rugby offers reportedly ~$400-450k + top-ups
CRITICAL EQUITY WINDOW
• Dec 2025 likely
• Lomax camp says: Lomax/agents asked Eels first about returning
• Eels' allegedly says no (restraint evolves to NRL ban)
BUT
• Discovery shows a Storm contract was uploaded to the NRL “Gateway” portal
• Discovery shows upload occurred before the Storm formally approached Eels (bad-faith)
• Suggestions of bad-faith and possible contract breaches
• This sequencing could be a key equity question
ESCALATION
• 06 Jan 2026 — Lomax seeks Storm move + unconditional release (media release)
• 15 Jan 2026 — Eels refuse unless “appropriate exchange of value” (media release)
• 22 Jan 2026 — Eels commence legal action to enforce Deed of Release
COURT / DISCOVERY
• 03 Feb 2026 — Moses SC tells court discovery shows:
* Provisional R360 contract pre-release (bad-faith move)
* Storm agreement pre-consent (bad-faith move)
* NRL portal upload expecting a fait accompli (bad-faith move)
• 09 Feb 2026 — Directions hearing
• March 2026 — Hearing anticipated (or 12–13 Feb)
Replies
Great read and what is your gut feeling which way this will go? I'm really hoping the courts favour the Eels not only because of me being a Parra supporter but because of the way that Lomax has acted, the way V'Landys has backflipped and also because it will just clearly send a damaging precedent that ALL rugby league contracts are not worth the price of toilet paper and it just shows the NRL is not as clean as we were led to think. I also don't agree that the Storm and Lomax should be the winners in all this ugly show. I applaud Parra for standing there ground and doing things legally
I have no doubt the exact sequencing of events will come out, and as you say, that will determine how this court case resolves. Having said that, I don't believe Parramatta would have gone down this route if they were acting unreasonably in limiting Lomax's choices of where he plays next year. I think it's very likely the club uncovered bad faith in the multiple contracts with other parties and that is what they are pursuing in court. Probably after raising with the NRL with no support from them.
In any event, something is going to change for the future of the game. I just hope Parra comes out on top and trust that they have acted with integrity in these matters.
V’landys played the tough guy for the good of the NRL when Lomax was flirting with R360.
Now he’s doing it again, this time against the Eels.
Keeping Lomax in the NRL is a massive win for him. Bigger than Parramatta. Bigger than one club’s feelings. Bigger than the backlash from fans.
That’s the real story.
He’s happy to upset the Eels hierarchy, their supporters, and plenty of NRL fans if it means a marquee player keeps playing . He wants respect as the custodian of the game, but shows very little when it comes to the collateral damage.
Be nice for him to show a little respect for the Eels, instead of back flipping and treating Lomax like a little child who simply made a mistake. Joke.
yawn
Your replies are as predictable as Lomax breaking a contract.
.....snore.....
I would reply in detail but you sqeal like a pre-pubescent girl and cry for mod help like a pre- pubescent boy.
Clearly Storm ain't exchanging anyone.
Parra should just suck it up, retire Matto on concussion basis, and use that money to welcome back Lomax, on an iron clad contract that makes sure he sees out his remaining 3 years.
Throw him in the backrow and play him like Cowboys play Nania or Katoa for the storm. For crying out loud we need a decent edge back anyway.
Great read mate and thanks for posting.
It is my understanding too, that Lomax agreed to join the Storm first. He only came back to the Eels as an afterthought, obviously based on legal advice.
I've had similar discussions with lawyers who believe that Eels have a strong case. However as you say the equity equation does play out here.
If the Eels were demanding he sit out for 3 years I suspect the Judge would set the release aside. But that's not the case at all. No one, not even the Eels want Lomax sidelined for 3 years, and that is an important point. The Eels are acting reasonably in looking for an outcome which serves everyone. I suspected this is what VLandys and Walters were attempting to convey in their ham-fisted way.
My gut says the Judge will force the clubs back into negotiations and he may trim down the restraints if the negotiations reach a point that he deems reasonable. There's no way a Judge would force Lomax to sit out of the game entirely when an agreement is possible. However this won't happen prior to Round 1. This will take some time.
Mutts if you thought is that we will be forced back into negotiations, do you think Parra will be given the opportunity to negotiate with other clubs not just the Storm.
If another club can offer a better deal through a swap, why should Parra accept the Storms offer. If Lomax wants to play NRL it should benefit Parra.
If Gus comments on the case, I will lay money on a swap deal with a bulldogs player.
Sorry, just to be clear, the Judge can only have regard to Lomax and the Eels (unless the Storm are subpoenaed). Ultimately, the issue turns on equity and reasonableness.
If it is established that the defendant has arranged, for example, a reasonably comparable player swap with Melbourne, and the Judge considers that outcome to be reasonable, the Court may vary the release (or set it aside). In that scenario, the Judge could effectively say to Parramatta that if they refuse the arrangement, Lomax has fulfilled his obligations and is free to depart.
As for other clubs, my understanding is that the Eels have already suggested Lomax negotiate with up to 15 other clubs, which he has flatly refused. Lomax only wishes to join Melbourne, which arguably operates in the Eels’ favour. On that basis, there is no restraint of trade.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next