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
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.
Interesting first and second points BE.
Considering how he signed with Parra via BA, there could very well be something there that may give his side some argument
Have you read his managers statment from 17/1?...Macy posted it.. Enjlightening read
zerotackle.com/lomaxs-manager-provides-contract-update-defends-star...
That zero tackle article and what was said is as "out of context" completely and shows no support at all for the circumstances being undertaken....... its like a convicted criminal being welcomed back if he is proven innocent! purely hypothetical ! and nothing to do with the case.
Did you note that the courts had it signalled as purely a civil matter!
Of course it is Civil, but depending what has transpired it is possible that new matters come to light that change that. We are going hard at this. Who knows where it ends?
For the lawyers ... what is the Eels' likely defense here, beyond "it's a signed voluntary contract?"
We assume in other words Lomax lacks sufficient ground to say he was not in a position to know, lacked legal guidance, was under duress or coerced etc.
So the case proceeds as "is the Eels' no-compete clause reasonable"?
At that point, again this is for lawyers, is the case ultimately about a restrain of trade being reasonable because it is a reasonable restraint of trade to have an employee not engage directly with a competitor without permission? Is it the case that other grounds for reasonable restraint of trade, like proprietary information or client lists etc, are just not applicable and thus the case is purely about the reasonable of the no-compete clause? And are the Eels on safe ground because they have not said ANY employer? Lomax was free to walk to R360 or domestic ruby or MMA or underwater crying and the other options Lomax promised were his true desires. Only direct competition, meaning other NRL teams. And the Eels might further be on solid ground because they went public about a player swap they deemed of appropriate value was acceptable? Meaning the Eels are being "reasonable"? The only one being unreasonable here is Lomax wanting to disadvantage the Eels by bailing on a long-term contract without any repercussions for him and no substantive fairness granted to the Eels?
It will all come down to the supreme court justice. Just hope he she or whoever aint a storm Bulldogs Rroosters or any other team Bar us supporter Fingers crossed 🙄🙄🙄
NOTE: earlier in the thread Blue Eel (replying to Macy) noted the club letter revealed Lomax asked for a release late July. Blue Eel points out Lomax was first listed on the right wing in Round 11, 16 May vs Knights. This is correct. Going through the draw, Lomax played right centre until Round 5 win vs Dragons, in which he was injured very late in the game (still kicked the winning field goal). Lomax was injured for 5-6 weeks and returned at right wing in R11, in part because Ryles had switched Penisini from left to right centre (defensive issues on left).
So Lomax has spat the dummy about 6 weeks or so later? After the last SOO game first week July (where he played right wing)
...so Bellyache gave him a cuddle, promised him centre and hatched a cunning plan to ratfuck us.
-
16
-
17
-
18
-
19
-
20
of 21 Next