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 let down by 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 —because Lomax is "human" and one of the game's "best players"— is striking. That begs a question: how does contract sanctity, bad-faith deeds, anti-tampering, and tough talk apply to all the other humans in the game?
Prima facie, the Lomax 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 podcast 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
Thanks, Mallee,
Like you, I'm proud of our club, regardless of the outcome. We stood up for ourselves and the ship is heading in the right direction.
The club has done everything right and in good faith, by the book, and discovery points to some arguably bad-faith conduct by the Lomax camp which doesn't help their cause.
Moses SC is one of the best in the business by all accounts, so we're in good hands. I'm reluctant to speculate on where this could land. Who knows.
There's a risk in all restraint cases in NSW equity courts of some trimmings (to the three-year exclusion period) or some form of relief. Technically, we'd still win, it's just not a full win and put pressure on a player swap timetable.
It would be difficult to understand how the entire retraint / contract could be nuked, regardless of what V'landys and Walters et al suggest.
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.
You're as lame as a no-legged dog
Lame is going out of your way to try put people down for no reason just to try make yourself look good. What are you compensating for here? Relax, we support the same team.
EAM / Randy, gents,
One wonders. If Lomax is treated differently because he’s a “marquee player” and “human”, what rules apply to all the other humans in the game?
V’landys’ lack of support for the Eels, coupled with multiple backflips on his tough-talking rhetoric on contract sanctity, anit-tampering, player loyalty over R360 money grabs met with ten year bans, is disappointing.
It’s Judge Dredd-like tough-talk when it suits, until it doesn't, then it's U-turns and musical chairs. Boombox dialled up.
He can play the technical, retroactive game (Lomax signed with R360 before the ban). But after the ban was announced Lomax still sought a release from the Eels in preparation to defect to R360. And Lomax still signed multiple contracts while under an Eels' contracts.
Quintessential V'landys (Feb 7th): “I’m an old-fashioned guy, where I believe a contract should be honoured. You sign a contract, you should honour it. But at the same time, I can see he’s a young guy that’s going to try to set himself up for life, and, and he looks at all opportunities."
He'd make a wonderful state politician.
V’landys’ lack of support for the Eels, coupled with multiple backflips on his tough-talking rhetoric on contract sanctity, anit-tampering, player loyalty over R360 money grabs met with ten year bans, is disappointing.
This is exactly right it's why I feel it's so important not only for us getting a win but ultimately integrity of the man and the game.If he's openly not coming out and backing Parra who like you mention have done everything correctly shown integrity to the player and the game I ask myself what's the point.His silence to me says alot really and do the Storm have that much influence on him if it were a lesser club would he stil say silent.I feel he's straddling the fence either side and jumps on the bandwagon once the winner is decided we'll it feels that way anyway.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next