UK High Court of Justice Freezes Worldwide Assets of Astor Defence and Henry Turnbull: What Was Ordered, Why It Matters, and What Actions to Consider

Justice Cotter of the U.K. High Court of Justice, King’s Bench Division, has continued an October 9, 2025, freezing injunction against Astor International, Astor Defence, and their principal, Henry Turnbull. This injunctive action¹ is designed to protect the claimants in light of credible allegations that these defendants committed multiple acts of fraudulent misrepresentation, unlawful means conspiracy, and tortious interference arising from a $486 million explosives supply arrangement. The Judge's order² should serve as a wakeup call for everyone in the industry because the court found the pretrial evidence against the defendants so compelling that it took the extraordinary step of freezing the defendants’ assets before any trial in order to protect the rights of the claimants in the case.

In response to arguments tendered by the defendants’ solicitor, Justice Cotter stated in the Order:

“I reject with little hesitation the suggestion advanced by Ms. den Besten [defendants’ solicitor] that there was (and is) insufficient credible material which established an arguable case of fraud and that the threshold requirements for alleging fraud and unlawful means conspiracy had not been met.”

Justice Cotter went on to conclude:

“I bear very much in mind that many issues are in dispute but in my judgment on the evidence available at the time of the hearing before Constable J Tripwire cleared by some margin the hurdle of establishing that there were serious issues to be tried in relation to the procuring of contracts and funds by fraudulent misrepresentation, and interference by unlawful means/conspiracy. Events and/or evidence have only made its case stronger.”

“‘one of the law’s two nuclear weapons’ and that, as has been repeated [sic] stated by Judges since 1975, the jurisdiction to make and [sic] freezing order should be exercised with great circumspection given the draconian effect on the commercial and economic freedoms of individuals/companies against whom no substantive judgment has yet been granted.” [Citations omitted.]

Courts grant this “nuclear” remedy only when there is a serious issue to be tried, a real risk that assets may be moved or hidden, and when it is just and convenient in all the circumstances. The freezing order was continued, notwithstanding Astor’s and Mr. Turnbull’s protestations, through their solicitor, that:

“The [prior freezing] order is having a direct impact on the ability of Astor to conduct its business, notwithstanding the ordinary business exception. ... Mr. Turnbull has stated that this will destroy Astor’s business[.]”

The court acknowledged that the evidence and testimony submitted was contradictory:

“Mr. Turnbull was characterized in two very different ways. Firstly, by Mr. Turnbull as a person who had used significant funds contrary to the purpose for which they were supplied to achieve his own ends or to spend on his own lavish lifestyle. He was willing to lie and conspired with Mr. Morales to engineer the 'cutting out' of Tripwire (and Mr. Morris, a former close friend) out of a very profitable contract. In effect someone who was unscrupulous. His past behaviour has given rise to a very real risk of unjustified dissipation.

“Secondly, Mr. Turnbull was characterised by Ms. den Besten as a very successful businessman, firmly based in this country, facing baseless allegations of dishonesty and whose only lack of frankness had been when he 'strung Mr. Morris along' about the MOD funds due to concerns about Tripwire's solvency ('stringing someone along' being different to dissipation). He was sensibly restructuring the companies in the group given their rapid growth and profitability. The allegations against him would be strenuously defended and there was no risk of dissipation of assets.”

Contradictory evidence, however, did not prevent the court from determining that justice supported the ongoing asset freeze:

“For the purposes of determining the issue of dissipation, I do not have to determine on balance of probabilities where exactly on the range between these polemics the truth lies. Rather, I have to make an objective assessment, carefully considering all the relevant evidence for and against the existence of a real risk of dissipation, not necessarily amounting to a probability. However, the risk must be of unjustified and improper dissipation with the intention of avoiding the implications of a judgment.”

When addressing claimant’s fears that the defendants would “dissipate” assets needed to fund any likely judgment in claimant’s favor, the court found credible the allegations of misleading statements about claimant’s funds, indications of lavish spending inconsistent with disclosed earnings, and corporate steps capable of placing assets beyond reach of creditors. The judge also focused on evidence of alleged past dishonest diversion of funds and misleading conduct and concluded that such actions demonstrated a risk that similar actions might be used in the future by the defendants to deprive the claimant of a lawful recovery if they were successful in the litigation.

Evidence submitted in the Court of Justice proceeding by the claimant’s solicitor included information that “Turnbull had purchased 24 supercars, 2 yachts and a mansion from Astor company funds, funds which were intended to be used for down payments.”

While acknowledging the “draconian” impact of its order on Astor’s operations—including claims that the order jeopardizes deposits owed to suppliers—Justice Cotter concluded the balance of justice favored preserving assets pending trial. Justice Cotter stated his reasoning as follows:

“I have considered and weighed up all relevant factors and the extent that they are supported by evidence before the Court. As I have already stated, given the huge impact of a freezing injunction, all issues, including the issue of whether it is just and convenient to make the order required, have received anxious scrutiny. I am satisfied that the order has had a substantial impact on Astor’s ability to conduct business; freezing injunctions almost inevitably have such an effect, and I have considered the extent of the evidence as to the degree of intrusion. I have also borne in mind, and weighed into the analysis, the relationship between the sums involved in the relevant contracts involving Astor and the sum fortifying the undertaking given by Tripwire. Ultimately, it is my evaluation of the strength of Tripwire’s claims on the evidence currently before the Court that has tipped the balance in favour of the granting of the order a fortiori when taken against the risk of dissipation. It is just to continue the order; the likely effects of the order will be to promote justice overall.”

The freeze order and associated asset disclosure obligations will continue through trial—likely in late 2026 or early 2027. In the meantime, Astor continues to market itself publicly as an active industry supplier.³ To be clear, the court’s ruling does not adjudicate liability, it simply underscores the gravity and credibility of the allegations, as well as the court’s concern that, absent judicially mandated restraint, Astor and/or Turnbull might try to dissipate assets before the merits of the case can even be tried in court.

For counterparties to agreements with these defendants, the manner in which the court viewed the business activities of the defendants in this case, based in part on Turnbull’s own testimony, suggests that others may want to consider risk management steps, such as heightened diligence on counterparty payment flows, attention to escrow mechanics, or similar performance security protocols, as well as scrupulous oversight. Given the troubling public testimony regarding alleged improprieties with government officials, it might also be prudent to ensure strict compliance with antibribery laws and anticorruption laws, as well compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corruption Practices Act. Counterparties also may want to consider whether, when, and where it might be appropriate to assert their own claims to protect their distinct interests rather than simply hoping that litigation by this particular claimant is sufficient to protect their commercial and reputational interests.

[2] Anonymized Summary of Judgment available here and at https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/69289968bbf69a1cf23f08c4.