Fuel Giant Feuds Over Airport Station Deal

United Petroleum is seeking compensation for broken expectations following Qantas' delayed terminal move at Perth Airport.
Updated on
Fuel Giant Feuds Over Airport Station Deal

The company invested millions into a uniquely designed airport service station, built to benefit from increased traffic linked to Qantas' planned relocation. Now, United Petroleum claims it suffered significant financial loss after relying on forecasts that have not materialised. It is suing Perth Airport, aiming to lower rental payments and recover alleged losses caused by what it describes as misleading projections.

As one of Australia's largest independent fuel retailers, United Petroleum has taken the matter to the Federal Court. The station, which resembles an aircraft with features inspired by wings and a tail, was part of an $8 million investment based on the belief that Qantas would move operations to the Airport Central precinct.

The lawsuit focuses on expectations that daily vehicle traffic past the station would increase to 78,000 as a result of the airline’s move. United alleges it committed to a $900,000 annual lease and high build costs based on representations that Qantas would complete its relocation by 2025. With the move now postponed until 2031, United claims it entered into a flawed agreement based on inaccurate projections. It argues that a more realistic investment would have involved spending approximately $4 million on the station and paying about $500,000 in annual rent.

Perth Airport rejects these allegations and denies any breach of duty. It says United Petroleum performed its own evaluations before committing. The airport also asserts that it was transparent in all dealings and acted in good faith throughout. However, court proceedings revealed that documents and brochures provided to United may have influenced its expectations about Qantas’ timeline.

This conflict is one of several legal battles United Petroleum is currently fighting, reflecting a strategy of challenging agreements it views as unfair or unfulfilled. With the court's final decision pending, the case highlights how delays in infrastructure projects and misunderstandings between commercial partners can lead to costly disputes.

Sources

Updated on

Our Daily Newsletter

Everything you need to know across Australian business, global and company news in a 2-minute read.