Zac Lomax's bid to return to the NRL has taken a dramatic legal turn, with the Parramatta Eels launching court action following a breakdown in negotiations with both the player and the Melbourne Storm.
The Eels have moved to enforce a contentious contract clause tied to Lomax's conditional release, after mediation between the parties failed to produce a resolution earlier this week.
The matter is now set to be heard in the NSW Supreme Court on Friday afternoon, with all sides pushing for a swift outcome as the 2026 NRL season approaches.
Lomax was granted a conditional release from the final three years of his Eels contract in November, allowing him to pursue opportunities outside rugby league.
However, that release reportedly included a clause stipulating that any return to the NRL would require formal approval from Parramatta, effectively giving the club veto power over where, and if, Lomax could resume his league career.
While Lomax has since reached an agreement with the Storm, Parramatta have so far refused to provide that release, rejecting what is understood to be a nominal transfer fee proposed by Melbourne.
The Eels argue the clause remains enforceable and protects their contractual interests, while Lomax's camp maintains the restriction is unreasonable given he was already released from his deal.
Eels Chairman Matthew Beach confirmed the club's decision to take legal action in a club statement.
“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,” he said.
The Eels are being represented by prominent barrister Arthur Moses SC, while Lomax has engaged high-profile lawyer Ramy Qutami as the dispute escalates.
With mediation unsuccessful, the court is now expected to determine whether the conditional release clause is valid, and whether Parramatta are within their rights to block Lomax's immediate return to the NRL.
Get set for the footy with the FREE Zero Tackle 2026 NRL Season Guide! Packed with 130+ pages of player profiles, team previews, insights and analysis, the 2026 NRL Season Guide is built for fans who want the full picture. Download your free Season Guide HERE.
Maybe Parra is being premature in taking court action, given no contract between Melbourne and Lomax has yet been signed.
Perhaps a better (cheaper) plan would have been to have sent a solicitor’s letter to Parra and the NRL informing them that if Melbourne offered a contract to Lomax, _then_ Parra would take take court action to have the new contract declared null and void, and advising the NRL that it should not register any new contract until the outcome of the court case has been decided.
I can see why Parra would not want to threaten the take the NRL to court if it were to register the contract. No point in picking a fight with your boss when he pays you the money to stay in business !
But _advising_ the NRL that that it really ought not to register a contract that may be overturned in the courts looks a lot less threatening.
And a few solicitor’s letters would cost less than briefing barristers and fronting up at court.