NRL superstar Zac Lomax has landed himself in a legal dispute, serving as a warning over the seriousness of employment contracts
The star winger who has represented NSW and Australia signed a long‑term deal with the Parramatta Eels, but asked for an early release at the end of the 2025 NRL season to take up an offer with the proposed rebel rugby union competition R360.
Parramatta agreed to release him from the remaining years of his Eels contract on the condition that he would not play for another NRL club without Parramatta’s consent until the end of 2028. This restriction was written into a formal deed associated with his release.
R360 has since been delayed/pushed back to at least 2028, leaving Lomax without a club for the 2026 NRL season and prompting interest from the Melbourne Storm in signing him immediately.
Parramatta argues he is now trying to walk back that agreement by signing with Melbourne without providing what they regard as appropriate compensation, in the form of a player swap or money.
Names floated publicly as potential Storm players in a swap have included Xavier Coates, Stefano Utoikamanu and Jack Howarth, which Melbourne is reluctant to agree to.
The Eels have since commenced legal proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court against Lomax to enforce the ‘no rival’ stipulation, with hearings scheduled for 12 and 13 February.
Lomax’s legal team says the post‑release restriction stopping him from playing for other NRL clubs is invalid or unenforceable and may amount to an unlawful restraint of trade now that the R360 opportunity has effectively evaporated.
He maintains that he should be free to sign with the Melbourne Storm for 2026 without Parramatta’s approval or demands for a specific “exchange of value” in the form of players or a transfer fee.
The consequences of disregarding employment contracts
This high-profile debacle is essentially an employer versus employee dispute over an employment contract.
Observers may be wondering whether it is a big deal. According to Dentons’ employment and safety partner Persephone Stuckey-Clarke, restraint of trade litigation is “one of the most serious kinds of post-employment disputes for an individual and can be equally severe for companies.”
She noted that individuals who breach these restraints can be drawn into serious and costly court proceedings and potentially be the subject of an injunction.
While these restraints of trade can be difficult for businesses to enforce, it can often be the only recourse to protect themselves from the fallout of these issues, such as IP, goodwill, and client relationships.
“Restraint of trade litigation can also ensnare prospective or new employers, who can be joined to enforcement proceedings in various ways. In short: yes, it’s a big deal,” said Stuckey-Clarke.
Stuckey-Clarke noted that people often ask whether post-employment obligations are enforceable as there is a misconception that courts will not uphold them. She said this is incorrect and there is risk associated with disregarding a contract.
How HR can deal with these issues
HR teams deal with these issues regularly, said Stuckey-Clarke, particularly with executives and senior employees who have strong client connections and access to confidential information.
She urged HR to “seek legal advice early” if there are fears that a former employee has or is likely to breach their contractual obligations.
“Time is of the essence when enforcing restraints,” Stuckey-Clarke said. “Particularly if Court action is on the cards. Any delay between identifying the breach and taking steps to commence Court proceedings can weaken a business’ case.”
“In these situations, it is also important for HR teams to think about the impact of the proceedings on the current workforce and market reputation as litigation can have a corroding effect on both.
While more information and lessons for HR will be available after the upcoming hearings, Stuckey-Clarke noted some important takeaways for HR leaders:
- Restraints of trade must be tailored. Reliance on pro-forma templates can make it difficult for employers to establish that a restraint is reasonable and therefore enforceable. Whether a clause is reasonable will turn on the facts such as, an individual’s seniority, remuneration, tenure with the business, access to clients and influence on business decisions.
- Communication with employees prior to their exit is critical. Employees should be reminded before their employment ends that certain post-employment restraints apply to them, and they must be honoured.
- If a suspected breach has occurred and the business may face serious and irreparable harm as a result of that breach, seek legal advice early. Time is of the essence.
All in all, the Lomax saga is a timely reminder that employment contracts – and especially restraint of trade provisions – are not mere formalities. When things go wrong, the consequences can be public, protracted and expensive for all involved.
For HR, the key is to treat restraints as strategic risk tools rather than boilerplate: ensure they are tailored, clearly communicated, and enforced swiftly but thoughtfully when issues arise.
As the court considers Lomax’s future and the strength of Parramatta’s restraint, HR leaders should be reviewing their own contracts, processes and escalation pathways now – before a high‑stakes dispute lands on their desk.
