Zac Lomax is set for a courtroom showdown with the Parramatta Eels on the eve of the NRL trials, with the superstar winger set to argue it would be a restraint of trade to block him from joining the Melbourne Storm.<\/p>\n
The Eels have launched legal action in the NSW Supreme against Lomax after they said he refused to abide by the terms of his release.<\/p>\n
Lomax and the Eels agreed in November to terminate his contract one year into a four-year deal after he elected to chase opportunities in the proposed rebel rugby union competition R360.<\/p>\n
When the club agreed to his release, it included a clause that Lomax not play for another NRL club before the expiry of his Eels contract at the end of 2028.<\/p>\n
However, when R360 failed to launch and pushed back its start date until at least 2028, it left the ex-NSW and Australian representative without a club for 2026.<\/p>\n
When last year\u2019s losing grand finalists the Melbourne Storm expressed an interest in his services, the Eels demanded compensation in the form of a player swap or money.<\/p>\n
The Eels proposed a player swap for Xavier Coates, Stefano Utoikamanu or Jack Howarth in exchange for Lomax being allowed to sign for Melbourne.<\/p>\n
The Eels said in a statement on Thursday that Lomax\u2019s legal team had \u201cinformed us in writing that he does not agree that the terms of the release can be enforced against him\u201d.<\/p>\n
It prompted the Eels to launch proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court in what the club said was an attempt to enforce the terms of his release.<\/p>\n
The two parties appeared before Justice Michael Slattery on Friday afternoon as the club sought an urgent hearing with the start of the NRL trials just weeks away.<\/p>\n
Barrister Arthur Moses SC, representing Parramatta, told the court the dispute centred around \u201cthe sanctity of the contract\u201d and the validity of Lomax\u2019s claim that the stipulations of the contract release represented a restraint of trade.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe defendant, who was subject to a fixed-term contract, approached the plaintiff (the Eels) to be released from the fixed term contract on the basis that he would follow his dream of participating in the R360 competition,\u201d Mr Moses said.<\/p>\n
\u201cOn one view of it, that\u2019s become a bit of a mirage and he\u2019s sought to re-enter the NRL competition in circumstances where he entered a deed of release with the plaintiff which precludes him from being able to play with another NRL club for the duration of his fixed term contract unless he had their consent.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr Moses told the court the factual issues of the case were \u201crather narrow\u201d.<\/p>\n
Lomax was represented in court on Friday by experienced silk Adam Casselden SC.<\/p>\n
The court was told that the Eels were issuing subpoenas to the Melbourne Storm, Lomax\u2019s manager Clinton Schifcofske and solicitor Ramy Qutami.<\/p>\n
The matter was set down for a hearing on February 12 and 13.<\/p>\n
The Storm play Canberra in their first trial on Friday February 13, before they open their season against the Eels on March 5.<\/p>\n
The Eels have their first trial on Sunday, February 15.<\/p>\n