Tripwire South LLC v Astor International Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3137 (KB) (27 November 2025)

Tripwire South LLC v Astor International Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 3137 (KB) (27 November 2025)

There is a serious issue to be tried regarding fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and tortious interference by the Defendants. The evidence supports a real risk of dissipation of assets, justifying continuation of the freezing order. The claims are properly pleaded under English law, and the presumption applies that foreign law is the same as English law unless proven otherwise. The freezing order is continued.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3137 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Tripwire South LLC; Defendant: Astor International Ltd; Defendant: Astor Defence; Defendant: Henry Turnbull
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Freezing Injunction / Interim Relief / Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order
Outcome
Freezing order continued
Legal Topics
Freezing Injunctions, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Tortious Interference, Breach of Contract, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law, Asset Dissipation, Full and Frank Disclosure
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Fraud Contract Law Freezing Injunctions Fraudulent Misrepresentation Unlawful Means Conspiracy Tortious Interference +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tripwire South LLC

Claimant

Astor International Ltd

Defendant

Astor Defence

Defendant

Henry Turnbull

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Freezing Injunction / Interim Relief / Return Date Hearing on Continuation/discharge of Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a serious issue to be tried regarding fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and tortious interference
  2. 2 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets justifying continuation of the freezing order
  3. 3 Whether the claimant failed to give full and frank disclosure

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue to be tried regarding fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy, and tortious interference by the Defendants. The evidence supports a real risk of dissipation of assets, justifying continuation of the freezing order. The claims are properly pleaded under English law, and the presumption applies that foreign law is the same as English law unless proven otherwise. The freezing order is continued.

Court Disposition

Freezing order continued

Orders

  • Continuation of the freezing order against all Defendants up to $25 million
  • Asset disclosure to continue as previously ordered