The Parramatta Eels have today commenced legal proceedings against Zac Lomax. The purpose of the proceedings is to enforce the release agreed in November 2025.
We have endeavoured to resolve this by negotiations. This has included a formal independent mediation process with Zac Lomax and his legal team and representatives of the Melbourne Storm. However, no deal has been reached.
Zac’s legal team have informed us in writing that he does not agree that the terms of the release can be enforced against him. Regrettably, we have been left with no alternative, but to approach the NSW Supreme Court to resolve this issue.
In late July / early August, Zac requested a release from his playing contract with the Parramatta Eels to pursue opportunities outside the NRL. After a period of negotiation with Zac and his lawyers, the Parramatta Eels agreed to the terms of a release for Zac to pursue opportunities outside of the NRL. As part of the release granted on 16 November 2025, the Parramatta Eels included conditions to safeguard the Club.
One of those conditions was that Zac could not join another NRL Club before 31 October 2028 without our express written consent.
This protected the Parramatta Eels (and its Members and fans) from a football perspective heading into the 2026 season. It ensured the Club would not lose a representative player to another NRL club without receiving adequate compensation/benefit during the period of Zac’s original contract. Zac agreed to that condition after receiving legal advice.
Parramatta Eels Chairman Matthew Beach made the following comments:
“It is disappointing that we have reached this position, but we have an obligation to the Club’s stakeholders to protect the contractual rights of our Club and the expectation of our Members, players and supporters that contracts will be honoured.
“Back in November 2025, we granted Zac Lomax’s request for a release to pursue opportunities outside the NRL on the condition that he would not return to the NRL during the period of his original playing contract with our Club, without our written consent.”
”Zac had legal representation during the negotiations of his release. Zac accepted those conditions on the basis that he told us that his interests were focused on pursuing opportunities with rugby union, particularly R360. The release documentation was registered with the NRL. The NRL are aware of the conditions associated with the release.
“Our Club believes in the importance of observing contractual obligations. Contracts allow Clubs and players to operate with certainty and within a framework of rules. Contracts are the very stuff that any member of the community and companies have to honour in order to ensure that there is fair dealing. The same applies to the NRL, Clubs and players.
“Late last year, when we were approached by Melbourne Storm, we engaged with them in good faith however we have not been able to come to an agreement that would represent sufficient value for our Club, particularly in relation to our football program. The guiding position of our Club has been to ensure a fair exchange of value for our football program in circumstances where the Storm are attempting to obtain the benefit.”
“Zac and his agent still have an opportunity to work with us to explore options with the other 16 NRL clubs. Notwithstanding this action, we remain open to discussions with any Club who may be willing to offer the appropriate value for our football program.”
“Our coaching staff, players, Members and fans would not expect us to consent to the release based on what has been offered, and therefore we have no alternative but to pursue legal action to enforce the terms of the release and protect the rights of our Club.”
Arthur Moses SC has been retained by the Parramatta Eels to represent its interests in court,” added Beach.
Replies
Ha yes we have faith restored ! For once we don't have to continuously moan about club :)
I've been continuously posting the nRL ought to have backed our position on this one or they ought to have just shut up!
all nrl fans are entirely sick of the contract sagas and reckon they are hoping we win this one for sure.
wish we could viewing court proceedings or the reporters can report exactly what's said? Wouldn't that be great?
Just posted in this thread Macy if we get through this court case with the W it will restore alot of the negativity I've had around these guys.We've lost some high profile recruitment battles this off season and now we are operating from a position of strength I'd like to see these guys finish the job.
I think it's really important we do we haven't had many wins off the park as of late and we desperately need one here.If we fail to do so it's hard to think we have the correct people in place to get to where we want to be.If it goes our way I think it's the catalyst for positive things for the club going foward.
I'd assume we had our lawyer verifying the correctness of our release contract terms if Lomax had his, and guess if our end doesn't hold up well we need a new lawyer :) but, as far as the clubs concerned I think this is the first time they've completely backed their position. Win or lose I think we've acted very very well myself.
we can only support our own lawyers views and our own intentions in the document is clear 🤞🤞🤞geez I wish we could be in that courtroom
Great thing about the is thread is that every comment is 100% backing the Eels club and supporting their stand. When the club statement refers to what Eels fans expect, they've read the room correctly!
Good point Daz.
I was thinking last night that I've never seen ALL the members on this site united and in agreement about an issue related to the club.
All thanks to Zac LOL
Although Zac's departing contract terms seem to be set in concrete and we should win this. Zac's ( and his legal team) argument and strategy to beat it will be interesting.
The court will look at was the contract signed voluntarily, did both parties have legal advice and both understood the terms.
Zacs legal team would then have to show some of the following:
1.Zac was under a special disadvantage at the time and the Eels exploited it.
Special Disadvantage can include Severe financial distress, Urgency for the contract, Lack of understanding despite advice,Emotional vulnerability by Zac, or a power imbalance ie a huge company vs an individual.
If zac got legal advice it still dosnt kill his argument ! if that advice was rushed or he had no abiltity to negotiate the terms of the contract, or he was pressured.
2. Then there is the Undue influence, ie sign to day or the deals gone etc
3. Then he has Restraint of Trade arguments. ie the contract unreasonable restrains your ability to work. This is the most realistic argument for Zac to use.
Just interested in seeing what Zac's legal team go with.
-
11
-
12
-
13
-
14
-
15
of 15 Next