Western Australia's Consumer Protection Commissioner has taken Burk Fuel Pty Ltd and Burk Pty Ltd to the Supreme Court of Western Australia, alleging the retailer sold fuel represented as Premium 95 and Premium 98 when independent testing indicated it was consistent with regular unleaded 91. The alleged conduct covers multiple Burk Fuel sites between 1 July 2025 and 2 February 2026. Burk Fuel denies the claims and says it will defend the proceedings.
These are allegations before the court. They have not been proven, and this story does not suggest they are true. Burk Fuel has previously said it sources fuel from a reputable supplier used by many Perth stations and that its fuel is regularly tested. In a statement after the case was filed, the company said its operations continue as normal and it would not comment further while the matter is before the court.
What Consumer Protection alleges
According to the WA Government announcement on 9 November 2026, the Commissioner for Consumer Protection has started civil proceedings alleging false or misleading representations about octane ratings, in breach of the Australian Consumer Law.
Consumer Protection says independent laboratory testing during late 2025 and early 2026 found samples of fuel sold as Premium 95 and Premium 98 were consistent with unleaded 91 (ULP). Commissioner Trish Blake has said all of the samples the agency tested came back as 91.
Reporting on the filing says the allegations relate to eight stations selling fuel represented as 95 octane and 10 selling fuel represented as 98 octane, with overlap across 14 Burk Fuel sites in Perth and regional Western Australia. The agency says the investigation followed a tip-off, included secret shoppers, search warrants at metropolitan and regional sites, and assistance from the Australian Government Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water.
Blake has said Consumer Protection will ask the court for significant orders, including compensation for consumers who may have been affected. The proceedings have only just been filed, so any compensation process will take time.
Which sites and dates are in play
The government announcement does not publish a station-by-station list of the tested sites. It does say the alleged conduct occurred across multiple Burk Fuel sites between 1 July 2025 and 2 February 2026.
Burk Fuel's own retail network lists WA sites including Landsdale, Alkimos, Malaga, Bassendean, Camillo, West Swan, Beaufort River, Broadwater, Williams, Arthur River, Carrabin, Mount Lawley, Oakford and Cannington. News coverage puts the chain at about 14 WA outlets. That network list is not the same as a court schedule of alleged sites, so keep the two separate until Consumer Protection or the court publishes more detail.
Blake has also said she contacted Consumer Affairs Victoria after Burk opened three service stations in Victoria, and that Victoria's commissioner is looking at fuel quality at those stations. That Victorian work is separate from the WA Supreme Court case.
Could using the wrong octane damage a car?
Unleaded 91 is the minimum grade for most petrol cars sold in Australia. Many high-performance and turbocharged engines recommend or require 95 or 98.
Blake has said the issue is both value for money and performance: some owners would have filled high-performance cars in good faith believing they were buying premium 98. Running a lower octane than the manufacturer specifies can cause knocking, reduced performance or, in some engines, long-term stress if the car cannot fully compensate. Whether any individual car was damaged depends on the model, how it was driven, and how often the wrong grade was used. That is a mechanical and evidentiary question, not something the court filing settles on its own.
If your car handbook requires 95 or 98 and you filled at a Burk site during the alleged period, keep records and speak to a mechanic if you have symptoms such as persistent knocking, warning lights or unexplained power loss. Do not assume damage; document what you can.
What affected drivers can do
Keep evidence now. Save fuel receipts, bank or card statements, loyalty records, photos of the bowser grade you selected, and any service invoices. Note the date, time, station suburb and litres purchased.
Contact the trader in writing first. WA Consumer Protection's usual complaint path is to raise the problem with the business, ask for the outcome you want (for example a refund of the premium-versus-91 price difference), and keep copies of every email or letter.
Escalate to Consumer Protection if needed. If you cannot resolve it with Burk Fuel, lodge a complaint with WA Consumer Protection (consumerprotection.wa.gov.au) or call 1300 30 40 54. The Commissioner has already said the court action will seek compensation orders for consumers who might be affected, but that process will follow the case, not overnight refunds.
Do not expect an instant class payout. Blake has said the magnitude of any consumer compensation will become clearer as the proceedings progress. Individual refund claims and the court case can sit alongside each other.
What happens next
Burk Fuel must respond in the Supreme Court. The allegations remain untested. Stations in WA continue to operate, according to Burk's statement. Victoria's separate look at Burk's three Victorian sites is ongoing according to Blake's comments to media.
For motorists, the practical takeaway is narrow and useful: if you paid for Premium 95 or 98 at a Burk Fuel site between July 2025 and early February 2026, keep your proof of purchase, follow the Consumer Protection complaint steps, and get mechanical advice only if your car is showing a problem.
1 / 6