A small-town service station on Tasmania’s northwest coast is at the centre of a legal dispute, with major fuel provider United Petroleum suing its operators for nearly $150,000. The $8 billion company alleges that the business did not meet the terms of a supply contract, while the defendants claim they were misled during the agreement process. The case pits a large corporation against a regional small business.
The dispute involves Kay and Wayne Pratt, who purchased a general store and fuel stop located in Nunamara, a rural township with a population of approximately 300 near Launceston. After the property was destroyed by fire in late 2023, the couple says a United representative promised fuel supply and rebuilding support. They claim they signed a contract without reading it thoroughly, relying on those verbal commitments.
United Petroleum alleges the Pratts breached a supply agreement which required them to purchase 58,000 litres of fuel each month. The company also claims the couple sold the property without following the proper procedures, breaching a right-of-first-refusal condition in the agreement. It is now seeking to recover liquidated damages and other associated costs totalling close to $150,000.
In response, the Pratts argue they were repeatedly assured by a United representative that the contract terms were standard and posed no cause for concern. They say they invested their own time and money into rebuilding the business, depending more on the verbal promises provided than the written contract. United denies all such allegations and has challenged certain parts of the couple’s legal defence.
This is not the first time United Petroleum has pursued legal action related to conflicts with contracted operators. Past incidents have led to criticism of the company’s business practices, with some franchisees saying that certain contract conditions make operations financially unviable. United states it generally prefers to resolve matters outside of court but insists that all parties are bound by law to honour contractual commitments.
The result of the Nunamara dispute could influence future dealings between major fuel suppliers and small regional operators across Australia. The case highlights the risks small businesses face when unwritten assurances are not reflected in formal agreements, particularly in imbalanced relationships. With court proceedings ongoing, the situation has brought renewed focus to the need for clear contracts and accurate representation in franchising.
