The NSW Supreme Court's five-day hearing into the playing future of winger Zac Lomax did not get off the ground on Monday morning, as Parramatta Eels and Melbourne Storm staged last-minute negotiations in a bid to settle one of the most contentious contract disputes in recent NRL history. The hearing, reported by the Sydney Morning Herald, was adjourned twice before Justice Francois Kunc before any substantive proceedings could commence.
Justice Kunc first granted a 90-minute adjournment at the request of Lomax's barrister, Adam Casselden SC, after it emerged that overnight talks between the two clubs had continued into the morning. Lomax himself was absent when proceedings were called on, arriving only once a further attempt at a private settlement began behind closed doors. A second 30-minute adjournment was then granted before the hearing's scheduled start.
Senior Parramatta officials were present in the courtroom from the outset. CEO Jim Sarantinos, chairman Matthew Beach, and football manager Mark O'Neill attended in person, signalling the club's determination to prosecute its case if talks collapsed.
How the Dispute Reached This Point
The background to Monday's proceedings is by now well documented. Lomax, a 26-year-old NSW State of Origin representative, was released by Parramatta at the end of the 2025 season to pursue an opportunity with the proposed Rugby 360 competition. The terms of that release, as the Eels allege, included a condition that he could not join an NRL rival club before October 31, 2028, without Parramatta's written consent. When Rugby 360's launch was postponed, Lomax sought to join Melbourne Storm for the 2026 season, triggering the legal action.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Melbourne subsequently made three financial offers to secure Parramatta's consent: $100,000, $200,000 and $300,000 respectively. The highest of those offers included a $211,000 salary-cap component designed to subsidise the wage of Parramatta forward Ryan Matterson. All three were rejected. Complicating matters for Matterson personally, the out-of-favour forward has again experienced concussion-type symptoms, leaving his own future uncertain as his name has been drawn into the broader negotiations.
Lomax's legal team argues a different reading of the release deed. According to court documents reviewed by multiple outlets, his position is that the agreement included a clause requiring Parramatta to not "unreasonably" withhold consent, and that an implied term of good faith applies. He contends the restraint amounts to an unlawful restraint of trade, given that the only competition he was permitted to leave for has since been indefinitely postponed.
The NRL's Role Under Scrutiny
The most explosive dimension of the case involves the NRL itself. Documents tendered to the court on February 13 allege that Melbourne Storm CEO Justin Rodski sent a text message to NRL CEO Andrew Abdo on January 21 stating: "Hi Andrew, not getting anywhere at this point, can you apply the blow torch on parramatta [sic] to get this done." Rodski allegedly added that Lomax remaining in the NRL was "obviously a win for the game."
In a document submitted by Parramatta to the court, the Eels characterised this communication as an attempt to use the governing body to place pressure on them to resolve the matter on Melbourne's terms. Crucially, the Eels allege the text was not disclosed to them by Melbourne during negotiations. The NRL's own submission was presented to Justice Kunc on Monday morning, after Parramatta issued a subpoena compelling head office to hand over relevant documents under an expedited timeline.
Legal commentator Lee Hagipantelis, speaking to SEN radio in February, described the alleged conduct as remarkable. He noted that Abdo represents the interests of the entire competition, and that a rival CEO seeking his intervention in what is fundamentally a private contractual dispute raised serious governance questions. Reports suggest Abdo denied the NRL had made any statement to Melbourne of the kind Rodski's message implied.
A Legitimate Tension Between Competing Interests
It would be easy to view this case simply through the lens of one club's contractual rights versus another's competitive ambition. The more considered reading is that it raises questions the NRL as an institution has long preferred not to answer publicly: how far does head office's discretion extend when the interests of clubs conflict, and what obligations arise when a player's circumstances change through no fault of his own?
Parramatta's position is legally coherent. A club that released a player on specific conditions, at significant cost to its own roster planning, is entitled to hold that player and any rival club to those terms. The Fair Work framework and general contract law both recognise that agreed restraints can be enforceable, provided they are reasonable in scope. The Eels argue theirs plainly is.
Lomax's counter-argument, that the commercial rationale for the restraint collapsed when Rugby 360 was postponed, is not without merit either. Restraint-of-trade doctrine in Australia, developed through decades of common law, requires courts to assess whether a restriction goes no further than is reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate interest. Whether Parramatta retains a legitimate interest strong enough to keep a player entirely out of the NRL for up to three years is a question that only Justice Kunc can definitively answer.
The spectacle of the NRL's governance being examined under subpoena adds a layer of institutional accountability that extends well beyond this single player's career. If the court finds that head office was drawn into covert pressure campaigns on behalf of one club at the expense of another, the implications for the competition's credibility will be significant, regardless of who ultimately wins the contract argument.
For now, the matter remains before the NSW Supreme Court. Whether Monday's adjournments produce a settlement or simply delay the inevitable remains to be seen. The hearing is scheduled to continue this week, with the case casting a long shadow over Thursday's round-one clash between the Storm and the Eels.