New details in watchdog’s lawsuit claim cheap Perth fuel chain sold more premium 98 than it bought

November 12, 2026 — 5:40pmA writ filed in WA’s Supreme Court has revealed details of Burk Fuel’s alleged fuel-swapping scheme, claiming the petrol chain sold more than four times as much premium 98 than it actually bought and accusing the retailer of tricking customers by secretly filling and mixing premium tanks with cheap regular unleaded.Consumer Protection announced on Monday it was suing Burk Fuel and its director Umar Farooq for allegedly selling 91 fuel that was labelled as 95 and 98 premium products in an alleged breach of Australian Consumer Law.Burk Fuel now have 14 locations around the state.Burk FuelHowever, the writ, published in WA’s Supreme Court on Thursday, revealed Consumer Protection was not just suing Burk Fuel, but also its subsidiary trucking company Burk Energy, which was used to ship its fuel.Burk previously advertised its in-house trucking company as a way to cut costs on delivering its fuel, and claimed its 98 fuel – otherwise known as its B-Pro Premium product – would provide customers with “cleaner combustion and superior engine protection”.“When it matters, trust the fuel that’s built for power,” it said in its advertising materials, according to the writ.However, the writ systemically laid out the basis of the alleged deception, and found the strongest evidence appeared to be discrepancies between what Burk bought through its petrol wholesaler and how much was sold to consumers.Burk has previously indicated it would fight the allegations, but has made no comment following Consumer Protection’s announcement on Monday.Farooq has repeatedly been contacted for comment. The company is due to file a defence at a later date.Consumer Protection obtained figures that found customers paid for nearly 9 million litres of 95 fuel over an eight-month period, between July 2025 and February 2026.However, the writ alleged delivery logs over the course of six months showed not a single litre of 95 was delivered to Burk’s locations.Umar Farooq is the Perth-based director.LinkedIn/Umar FarooqThe only delivery recorded was a small batch on January 13 this year, which was only about 8000 litres. According to the writ, rather than being put in the 95 underground tanker to be sold appropriately, it was dumped mistakenly into the Burk Mount Lawley site’s 98 tank.However, as a result of the minuscule purchase figure over seven months, Consumer Protection said it would ultimately allege Burk misrepresented its 91 fuel as 95.Relating to Burk’s premium 98 fuel, it also found customers paid for more than 7 million litres at the pump over the same seven-month time frame.However, the writ alleged Burk had only ever bought 1.69 million litres of it across the course of Consumer Protection’s investigation.Consumer Protection alleged Burk did not buy any 98 fuel for the month of July 2025, but continued to sell it at the pumps.The watchdog alleged Burk bought 14.7 million litres of regular 91 fuel to make up the difference and mixed the fuels. This would mean any motorist who filled up either received mixed fuel or 91, the writ alleged.The lawsuit revealed Consumer Protection’s investigators found out about the discrepancies between what was sold and what was purchased after discovering a WhatsApp group allegedly run by the company’s truck fleet manager, who is understood to have now left the country.Burk’s truck fleet was run in-house, and the writ alleged the fleet manager would set out explicit instructions over the messaging app and order drivers to log every delivery on paper dockets.All up, customers would have bought more than 50 million litres of unleaded petrol across the period Consumer Protection investigated.Using Thursday’s reported prices for Burk stations on FuelWatch, this would mean the company could have claimed upwards of $2 million on top of its regular profit.The company is currently under investigation by authorities for its fuel quality.Burk FuelIn the writ, Consumer Protection said it would ask WA’s Supreme Court, if its case was proven, to consider disqualifying Farooq from managing corporations in the future, and for him and the business to pay financial penalties for allegedly breaching Australian Consumer Law.The lawsuit claimed Farooq had intimate knowledge of the alleged scheme because he was the sole director of Burk, the trucking company, and the fact he dealt with the supplier responsible for ensuring fuel allocations were available for the drivers to collect.Consumer Protection alleged Farooq was involved in the load plan discussions on WhatsApp, and he regularly notified FuelWatch about his prices on the wrong products.“At all material times Mr Farooq was knowingly concerned in Burk and Burk Fuel’s conduct in that he knew that fuel was being offered and supplied to consumers at the retail fuel outlets as PULP 95 and as PULP 98, knew that the Instagram statements, website statements, FuelWatch notifications, price board statements and bowser statements were being made, and knew that the fuel so offered and supplied had a RON [research octane number] lower than the represented minimum RON for that grade,” the writ said.Consumer Protection said it would also seek for the court to ban Burk Fuel and Farooq from selling fuel in WA for a period of five years, and pay back consumers.The company has not yet responded to the claims.Hannah Murphy is a journalist with WAtoday covering breaking and general news. She previously worked for the ABC in the state’s Kimberley region.Connect via email.From our partners