Western Australian fuel retailer Burk Fuel faces Supreme Court civil proceedings following allegations that it sold regular 91-octane unleaded petrol as premium 95 and 98-octane fuel.
The investigation, conducted by Consumer Protection, suggests motorists paid higher prices for products that testing identified as standard unleaded.
The legal action, announced on Monday, targets Burk Fuel Pty Ltd, Burk Pty Ltd, and their sole director, Umar Farooq. According to reports from PerthNow and WAtoday, the allegations stem from an extensive investigation into 14 service stations across Perth and regional Western Australia. The watchdog alleges that between 1 July 2025 and 2 February 2026, the retailer misrepresented the octane ratings of fuel sold at multiple sites.
Strategic Implications of the Fuel Misrepresentation Allegations
- Regulatory Risk: The Commissioner for Consumer Protection is seeking significant orders and compensation for impacted customers, with potential fines reaching up to $100 million or 30% of turnover.
- Consumer Trust Erosion: The case highlights a critical vulnerability in fuel retail where consumers cannot independently verify product quality at the bowser.
- Market Competition: Burk Fuel has historically undercut competitors by up to 10 cents per litre, a practice the regulator suggests may have been enabled by the alleged fuel grade discrepancies.
Lab Tests Show Fuel Octane Levels Matched Regular 91-Octane Petrol
The investigation involved independent testing by accredited laboratories to verify the octane levels of fuel sold at Burk Fuel sites. According to the Western Australian Government, testing of samples sold as “B-Pro Premium 98” returned results consistent with regular 91-octane unleaded petrol (ULP).
Consumer Protection Commissioner Trish Blake stated that the agency possesses “fairly rock-solid evidence” that an effort was made to mislead the public. The regulator’s findings indicate that the alleged conduct affected approximately 10 sites selling fuel represented as 98-octane and eight sites selling 95-octane fuel, with an overlap across 14 total locations, WAtoday reported.
The investigation was bolstered by the execution of search warrants at metropolitan and regional stations, which allowed authorities to gather documentary and electronic evidence. This process was supported by the Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), the Western Australian Government noted.
Financial Impact on Motorists and Engine Integrity
The discrepancy between fuel grades represents a measurable financial loss for consumers. According to data from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) cited by CarExpert, the price gap between 98-octane and 91-octane fuel typically ranges between 20 and 25 cents per litre.
For a vehicle with a 55-litre tank, such as the Toyota RAV4 hybrid, this equates to a premium of up to $13.75 per fill-up. CarExpert further noted that using lower-octane fuel in high-performance engines can lead to “knocking,” which may reduce performance and cause long-term engine damage over time.
| Fuel Grade | Alleged Product at Burk Fuel | Typical Price Premium (per litre) |
|---|---|---|
| 91 Octane (ULP) | Standard Unleaded | Base Price |
| 98 Octane | Represented as Premium 98 | + ~20-25 cents |
Supreme Court Will Determine Penalties for Burk Fuel
The Supreme Court of Western Australia will determine the scale of penalties for Burk Fuel and its director. While there is no standard penalty for these specific breaches, the maximum financial exposure is significant under Australian Consumer Law. CarExpert reported that the maximum fine is set at $100 million, three times the value of the breach, or 30% of the company’s turnover during the period of the offending conduct.
The proceedings draw parallels to a 2007 case involving Dojoo Pty Ltd, which traded as Ballina Petroleum Distributors. In that instance, the company was fined $400,000 for delivering nearly two million litres of regular unleaded into tanks designated for premium fuels, while its managing director received an additional $70,000 fine, CarExpert reported.
Burk Fuel has denied the allegations. Earlier in 2026, the company claimed it was being unfairly targeted due to its lower pricing models, 7NEWS reported. The company has indicated it intends to defend the claims in court.
Fuel Retailers Must Ensure Accuracy of Bowser Information
The case shows how difficult it is to oversee the retail fuel sector. Commissioner Blake emphasized that motorists must be able to rely on information displayed at bowsers, noting that “you do not have the independent ability as a consumer to inspect the product.”
As the legal proceedings move forward in the Supreme Court, the outcome will likely influence how fuel retailers manage grade separation and quality assurance. The investigation has already prompted alerts to authorities in Victoria, where Burk Fuel operates three additional stores, according to 7NEWS.
Whether the court finds the misrepresentation was a systemic operational failure or a deliberate attempt to subsidize low retail prices remains the central question of the litigation.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute financial advice.
