WA Sues Burk Fuel Over 91 Petrol Allegedly Sold as Premium 95 and 98

• Western Australia’s Commissioner for Consumer Protection alleges Burk Fuel sold 91 unleaded as Premium 95 and Premium 98 between 1 July 2025 and 2 February 2026.
• The regulator says independent tests of samples from several sites came back as 91 every time; Burk has denied the claims and says it will defend the Supreme Court action.
• Keep your receipts, check what octane your car needs and know that nothing in the case is proven yet.

What Did You Actually Pump Into Your Tank?

The Commissioner for Consumer Protection in Western Australia has started civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia against Burk Fuel Pty Ltd, Burk Pty Ltd and their sole director. The claim is that motorists paid for fuel sold as Premium 95 and Premium 98 when testing showed it was consistent with regular unleaded 91. The alleged conduct ran from 1 July 2025 to 2 February 2026 across multiple sites. Nothing has been proven, and the company has said it will defend the case.

The investigation came from the Consumer Protection team in the Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety, with help from the federal Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water. Independent fuel testing in late 2025 and early 2026 raised the first concerns about several Burk Fuel sites. Investigators also raided stations in Perth and the regions under search warrants and seized documents and electronic records.

Commissioner Trish Blake put the case in terms of what a buyer receives for the money. “When motorists choose to pay more for premium fuel, they should be able to rely on the information provided by the retailer and have confidence they are receiving the product they purchased,” Ms Blake said.

She then set out the allegation in her own words. “We allege Burk Fuel represented certain fuels as Premium 95 and Premium 98 when testing indicated these products were consistent with regular unleaded 91 ULP.”

“Consumers are entitled to rely on representations made about products they purchase, including information displayed at bowsers.”

“Businesses must not make false or misleading representations about the goods they sell, and we will take action where we believe conduct may contravene the Australian Consumer Law.”

The chain runs 14 outlets across Perth and regional Western Australia and three stores in Victoria. The published material does not say which sites are covered, and nothing in it links the Victorian stores to the case. Ms Blake told a Perth radio programme the test results were uniform. “All of the samples came back as 91 fuel,” she said.

She added that the result would amount to a “massive breach of trust for the consumers” should a court uphold the claims. Her reasoning rests on what a driver can check at the pump. “Particularly for something like fuel, where you do not have the independent ability as a consumer to inspect the product and know if you’re getting what you’ve paid for,” she said.

“You have to be able to rely and trust on the trader.”

The other Western Australian traders the agency sampled came out clean. “I was very pleased to find that all the other traders, all of their fuel samples came back exactly as they were being promoted to the consumer,” Ms Blake said.

The case began with one consumer. That person queried the quality of the petrol sold by Burk Fuel with a Perth radio station, and the Commissioner says that tip started the inquiry. “They’re an absolute deadset legend in my book, because the more that we can help consumers to have trust in the economy and keep traders honest, the better it is for everyone,” she said.

When authorities disclosed the investigation in April 2026, the company strenuously denied the allegations and said it used a reputable supplier and tested its fuel regularly. After the court filing it issued a short statement. “Burk’s operations continue to operate as normal. Burk will not be commenting further while the matter is before the court.”

What the Premium Gap Costs You

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission puts the average gap between 98 and 91 octane at 20 to 25 cents a litre. On a 55 litre tank, the size fitted to the Toyota RAV4 hybrid, that is $11.00 to $13.75 extra on every fill, worked out as 55 litres at $0.20 and at $0.25.

Spread over a year, the figure grows. As an illustration only, a driver who fills a 55 litre tank once a week for 52 weeks pays $572 to $715 more for premium than for regular. That sum is what a premium label asks a customer to hand over, and it is not a measure of what any Burk customer lost. The court has not found that any customer was short-changed, and the number says nothing about how many fills were affected.

The cost goes past the price tag for some cars. The Toyota RAV4 hybrid requires at least 95 octane, and regular 91 is not suitable for it. Some high-performance cars call for the higher grades, which is the point Ms Blake made. “It’s a significant difference in value,” she said.

“But also a lot of the high-performance cars only run well on the high-performance fuel.”

“Some people will have been putting, in good faith, what they believe to be premium 98 unleaded fuel into their high-performance car.”

Pump prices hit records earlier in 2026, and the federal government paused its fuel excise and the heavy vehicle road user charge in response. The ACCC’s finding that petrol is 62.9 cents dearer than in February shows how fast the base price has moved.

What the Law Says and What Could Follow

The Commissioner alleges false or misleading representations under the Australian Consumer Law. Section 29 of that law bars a business in trade from misdescribing the quality, grade or composition of goods, and an octane label is a statement of grade. Breaches of section 29 fall under the civil penalty provisions in section 224 of the Act.

The size of the possible penalty depends on the date. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Doubling Penalties for ACCC Enforcement) Act 2026 lifted the main ceiling for a company from $50 million to $100 million, and it applies to conduct from 28 March 2026. The Burk allegations end on 2 February 2026, before that date. For conduct before 28 March, the ceiling for a company was the greater of $50 million or three times the benefit it obtained from the conduct. Where a court cannot value the benefit, the ceiling is 30 percent of the company’s adjusted turnover over the breach period. For an individual the ceiling is $2.5 million, a limit the new Act did not change. Penalties apply to each act or omission, so a case with many sales can multiply the exposure. Ms Blake has not named a figure for this case. Her agency will seek significant financial penalties if a court finds the allegations proven.

An older fuel case shows the scale courts have used. In 2007 a northern New South Wales fuel distributor, Dojoo Pty Ltd, was fined $400,000 over diluting premium grades with regular unleaded for BP stations between September 2004 and June 2007. The Federal Court ordered its managing director to pay a further $70,000 in December 2007. The company had admitted 28 criminal charges under the Trade Practices Act. Those were criminal penalties under a repealed law, and the Burk case is a civil claim, so neither figure forecasts an outcome.

Fuel prices drove the doubling. Lawmakers aimed the Act at cartels and at misleading conduct while pump prices climbed on the back of the Middle East conflict, though the higher ceilings are permanent and cover every industry. In March 2026 the ACCC said it would push for the top penalties courts can justify. That pledge covers the federal regulator, and this case belongs to the Western Australian Commissioner.

What to Do Now

Start with the receipts. Ms Blake advised motorists on a Perth talkback program to hold on to their records. “If you have purchased fuel earlier in the year and you have receipts from that fuel, then hold on to those receipts and just keep them in a safe place. If the court awards a compensation scheme, then we’ll be letting everybody know about how they might be able to make a claim against that scheme,” Blake said.

That advice carries a limit worth stating plainly. No compensation scheme exists today. A scheme would follow only if the court orders one, and the Commissioner has promised to publicise it if that happens. A card or bank statement that shows a purchase at a Burk site, the date and the amount will back up a paper receipt that has faded.

Then work out what your own car needs. The owner’s manual and the fuel filler flap state the minimum octane for the engine. A car rated for 91 does not need the premium grade at all, which saves the 20 to 25 cents a litre.

Check the dates before you worry. The alleged conduct covers 1 July 2025 to 2 February 2026 only, and the Western Australian action concerns Western Australian service stations. Drivers in other states who suspect a fuel retailer can contact their own state or territory consumer regulator. The Australian Consumer Law applies in every jurisdiction and each one enforces it. The Consumer Protection website carries guidance on your rights under the Australian Consumer Law.

For wider running costs, see how toll charges are shifting in Victorian toll caps, where the cap figures decide what weekly drivers pay.

What Happens Next in the Supreme Court

The proceedings are at the start. The case now moves through the Supreme Court of Western Australia, and Burk Fuel says it will defend. The court will decide whether the representations at the bowser were false or misleading, and only after that finding would penalties or any compensation order come into play.

Burk Fuel Pty Ltd and Burk Pty Ltd are both defendants, along with their sole director. The ceiling for an individual is $2.5 million, far below the company limits.

Until the court rules, treat every statement in the case as a claim. The Commissioner relies on test results and the evidence seized under warrant. Burk Fuel relies on its denial and its supplier. Drivers who bought premium fuel in Western Australia over the past year have no reason to assume their own tank was affected, and every reason to hold the receipts.

Want more car content? Add us as a preferred source on Google to your favourites list for the best automotive news and analysis on the internet.

If you enjoyed this article, be sure to follow us on Microsoft Start.

Reviewed by Preetam Gadekar