NRL Court Battle Over Zac Lomax Could Cost Melbourne Storm Millions
Zac Lomax Court Battle Threatens Melbourne Storm's Season

High-Stakes NRL Legal Battle Over Zac Lomax Could Leave Melbourne Storm With Hefty Bill

A dramatic courtroom confrontation involving NRL star Zac Lomax might result in the Melbourne Storm facing a substantial legal expense rather than acquiring the representative winger for their playing squad this season. Parramatta Eels have initiated legal proceedings to prevent Lomax from transferring to their NRL rivals, setting the stage for a costly dispute.

Contractual Limbo and Legal Maneuvers

The Eels originally released Lomax amid widespread speculation that he would join the R360 rugby union competition. However, when R360 postponed its launch until November 2028, the football star found himself in professional limbo before pursuing a move to AAMI Park with the Melbourne Storm. The proposed switch to the Storm for the 2026 season onwards has been reportedly valued at an impressive $1 million.

During a brief hearing at the NSW Supreme Court on Friday, it was revealed that Melbourne had indemnified the NSW Blues Origin star, meaning the NRL club could be compelled to cover his legal costs if the Eels emerge victorious in this contentious case. This development adds significant financial stakes to an already complex situation.

Legal Arguments and Timetable Pressures

Parramatta's barrister Arthur Moses SC informed the court that in December, Lomax's lawyer Ramy Qutami indicated the winger could potentially play with the Storm, Perth Bears, or Canberra Raiders. Moses argued that whether the Eels' refusal to consent to a move to an NRL rival was reasonable depended entirely on the conduct of both teams and Lomax himself.

The 26-year-old Lomax contends that this contractual restriction cannot be legally enforced, while Parramatta maintains it is both valid and binding. Moses further asserted that Lomax would need to undergo cross-examination in court and that a two-day hearing scheduled to begin on February 12 would prove insufficient for proper examination of all relevant facts.

Earlier on Friday, Lomax's barrister Adam Casselden SC pushed vigorously for the matter to be heard as swiftly as possible. Justice Francois Kunc responded by telling the barrister to explain why there would be serious consequences for Lomax if the hearing was instead postponed to the week beginning March 2. "You will have to do some work to persuade me why the world will end if we push this back to the start of March," Justice Kunc remarked pointedly.

Season Implications and Broader Context

If this legal spat extends beyond the commencement of the 2026 NRL season, Zac Lomax will definitely miss playing in round one, creating additional pressure for a timely resolution. The involved parties are scheduled to return to court on February 9 to finalize the next procedural steps in this unfolding drama.

Lomax originally joined the Parramatta Eels for the 2025 season after successfully seeking a release from the final two seasons of his contract with the St George Illawarra Dragons. This background adds another layer to the current contractual complexities being debated in court.

Storm Coaching Stability Amid Player Uncertainty

Meanwhile, in a separate but related development, head coach Craig Bellamy has extended his tenure with the Melbourne Storm until 2028, providing some stability amidst the player acquisition uncertainty. Bellamy, aged 67, originally replaced Mark Murray at the Storm helm back in 2003, establishing himself as one of the most respected figures in the sport.

"I love this club and everything it represents, the people, our history and our fans," Bellamy declared in an official statement. "I've always said I'll only keep coaching if the club believes I can still contribute. We've got an outstanding coaching group, who are very capable, and I'm looking forward to helping with their ongoing development."

This coaching continuity contrasts sharply with the player acquisition challenges highlighted by the Lomax case, demonstrating how off-field legal matters can significantly impact on-field roster planning and team composition in professional sports.