EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 620

United Petroleum v Perth Airport

A Federal Court case about a service station lease, Qantas terminal relocation forecasts and misleading future representations in a...

Federal Court of Australia20 May 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Future-looking statements in tenders, brochures and deal meetings need evidence.
  • A Federal Court case about a service station lease, Qantas terminal relocation forecasts and misleading future representations in a commercial deal.

Use this to check

  • Future traffic, approval, relocation and growth claims can be misleading if there are no reasonable grounds.
  • Tender brochures and deal meetings can both create legal representations.
  • A buyer should convert critical assumptions into contract protections before signing.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • United Petroleum entered a transaction with Perth Airport to lease and develop a service station site on Airport Drive.
    • The opportunity was promoted against the background of Perth Airport's plan to consolidate passenger terminals at Airport Central, including the relocation of Qantas from Airport West.
    • Tender material and a later meeting communicated that Qantas was expected to relocate in the mid-to-late 2020s and that traffic on Airport Drive was forecast to increase substantially.
    • United said those statements mattered to its decision to offer a high rent and build a larger flagship service station.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether statements in tender material and an in-person meeting about Qantas relocating terminals and future Airport Drive traffic were misleading or deceptive, whether they were future-matter representations, whether United relied on them, and whether the alleged representations caused a compensable transaction loss.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Federal Court found misleading or deceptive conduct in connection with representations about Qantas relocating from Airport West to Airport Central and the expected traffic increase on Airport Drive.
    • The judgment dealt with reliance, causation and United's alternative-transaction loss case, with further consequences to follow from the Court's findings.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Future-looking statements in tenders, brochures and deal meetings need evidence.
  • If a business is selling a commercial opportunity based on expected traffic, growth, relocations or approvals, it should keep the assumptions current and disclose material uncertainty before the counterparty commits.

Useful next steps

  • Future traffic, approval, relocation and growth claims can be misleading if there are no reasonable grounds.
  • Tender brochures and deal meetings can both create legal representations.
  • A buyer should convert critical assumptions into contract protections before signing.
  • A seller should update or qualify earlier statements when important uncertainty emerges.
  • List the future assumptions that make the deal commercially attractive.

Practical read

This is a commercial deal case, not a consumer refund dispute. United was making a major business decision about rent, site design and construction spend. Perth Airport was promoting a site by reference to future passenger movements and the expected relocation of Qantas terminals. Those forecasts made the site look more attractive.

The Court treated the statements as representations about future matters. That matters because a business making a future representation needs reasonable grounds. It is not enough to say the words were only an expectation if the commercial message tells the counterparty that an important future event is likely enough to rely on.

For small and scaling businesses, the lesson is practical on both sides of the deal. If you are selling or leasing an opportunity, keep your forecast assumptions current and qualify uncertainty clearly. If you are buying, investing or leasing, make the future assumptions explicit in the contract through warranties, conditions, disclosure schedules or pricing mechanisms.

Checks to run

Key points

  • List the future assumptions that make the deal commercially attractive.
  • Ask what documents support each forecast, traffic estimate, approval timeline or relocation plan.
  • Put critical assumptions into warranties, conditions, milestones or rent adjustment mechanics.
  • Update counterparties if old tender statements become materially uncertain before signing.
  • Keep meeting notes and versions of brochures, models and forecasts in the deal file.

Key takeaways

  • Future traffic, approval, relocation and growth claims can be misleading if there are no reasonable grounds.
  • Tender brochures and deal meetings can both create legal representations.
  • A buyer should convert critical assumptions into contract protections before signing.
  • A seller should update or qualify earlier statements when important uncertainty emerges.

Related topics

How Sprintlaw can help