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
Didn't Arthur Moses strongly suggest that the Storm need to be joined and Tripp subpeona for a chat? I thought it was why they vacated the feb dates.
Dogs don't need Lomax in their backline. Their cap is at max as it is.
What if PVL grants the Eels a salary cap exemption to resign Lomax for this season? Everyone is happy and although Lomax is coming back with his tail between his legs, maybe the way this has blown up will set him straight.
Considering PVL wants him back that's done.
Considering 90% of fans feel for Parra they will be satisfied.
Parra get their player back on a reasonable and manageable salary, Ryles would be happy with that.
I'm not concerned about the court case at all. In the wash up, if they can't find Lomax culpable to some extent there's something we are all missing. The only question is to quantify the damages we are awarded, he heads to the storm and we all move on with our lives. I'm sure Mr Moses has matters in hand. The interesting part will be what the nrl do from here cause something is a little fishy
Excellent Hoe... Bravo
Bringing Walters out for a media stroll is more dirty pool from Ugly Pete.
I can accept The Years being trimmed.
NRL
No Real Leadership
I agree the judgement will be made on pieces of evidence not yet available so everything is pure speculation and guess work.
1 thing I saw in the timeline I think is important is but has been overlooked or not spoken about enough is he asked for a release and eels didn't grant it until he had provisionaly signed with R360 and 10 year bans were publicly announced by NRL administration.
That shows the eels weren't trying to offload him like some of the narrative around and if dates are correct then it seems Parra only released him to play R360 the day after NRL were adamant bans would be handed down to players who signed with R360.
He also cut ties with R360 only days later so the request for a release to play R360 seems like it wasn't genuine on Lomax part. Then the Eels still felt the need to protect themselves with the clause despite NRL banning threats and his signature with R360.
Did they suspect Lomax wanted to play NRL elsewhere if R360 fell through. It seems the club felt something was off to add that clause despite the NRL threats of bans and Lomax reasons for a release if he told the club he had signed with R360.
If players are called as witnesses to discussions with Lomax about his reasons for leaving that would be reasonable grounds to say eels couldn't have him back due to damage of team morale and our cap being spent elsewhere. The thing that stands out is Lomax isn't short of other options as he can play union, super league or boxing.
As for restraint of trade I don't understand how that can apply. Lomax was ready to play anywhere in the world with no choice of his team for R360, so I would think Parra under the clause have the right to find a club willing to do a deal with a player swap to protect them for losing a rep quality player.
Great blog and really well laid out, especially the sequencing of events. I guess we will have to wait and see, it feels like we have a strong case, especially if we acted first, I'm just not confident justice will prevail as the Storm have a knack of always get their way.
Speaking of NRL backflips...
"with theNRL backing down this week from its push to give teams the choice to receive the ball if they concede." ...These head office moneybugs are feeling the pressure.
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next