Judge blasts ‘self-absorbed’ son who lost £2.6m court fight with his own mum over London townhouse
A financier who sued his mother for £2.6 million, claiming he was unfairly “disinherited”, has been left with a £1 million court bill.
Andrew Grijns forged a successful career in London finance while being “allowed” to live in his wealthy American parents’ £3.85 million Chelsea mansion for more than 20 years.
But following the death of his father, Leendert Grijns, in 2019, he and his mother, 80-year-old Janice Grijns, had a nasty falling out; Mr Grijns accused her of “slandering, bullying and opposing him”, while he accused her of “wanting him dead so he could have property”.
He told her to “get out of my house as soon as possible” and that she “could not live there hating and slandering him”, leading to a confrontation between the pair in court; each claimed rights to the house and branded the other a “trespasser”.
Mr. Grijns sued his mother and even launched a bid to have her imprisoned; He claimed he was “promised” he would be given two-thirds of the value of the four-storey house in Bury Walk, Chelsea (about £2.6 million), and claimed he had been living there at his own expense for decades rather than moving out and buying his own property.
A tribunal alleged that he had “structured his life… around promises made by his parents regarding the future of the property” and that he had done so “despite the fact that the decor and arrangements of the property were old-fashioned and apparently not to his taste… and although, as he said, he would have preferred to buy a place of his own.”
But a judge at the High Court threw out his mother’s claim for her millions and rejected her claim that living on her parents’ property for most of her adult life was “disadvantaged”.
Master Timothy Bowles said: “The truth is… Andrew has had the opportunity to live in a substantial property in a desirable part of London at a very modest cost for the better part of a quarter of a century.
“Andrew… is a person who is completely self-focused and whose biggest concern is entirely himself.
“Andrew regularly insulted his mother and was, in the local parlance, ‘bad-mouthed’. He accused her of slandering and bullying him, of being mean, destructive and evil. He accused her of… old age and dementia.”
“The true and absolute case… was that Andrew chose to stay and continue his life on the property, not because of any assurances given – there were none – but because it suited him.”
After rejecting her demand for £2.6 million, she went on to order Mr Grijns to leave the house, adding that he now faces a huge court bill for this fight, possibly over £1 million, with the cost estimated by his mother alone reaching £750,000.
He will also have to pay his own legal costs, as well as £85,000 a year to mark the time he remains in the house after being told to leave in August 2023, and the rent he receives for subletting part of the house.
London’s High Court heard that Mr Grijns’s parents, real estate agent Janice, an academic, and banker Leendert, bought the four-bedroom, Georgian terraced house with a separate basement granny flat in 1994, and Mr Grijns moved into it in 1999.
“Mr Grijns’ banking career led him to spend a considerable amount of time in London and this was the context, or part of the purchase of the property,” the judge said.
“The property was purchased in 1994, partly to provide a base for Mr Grijns while he was working in London, and partly as a holiday home where they, especially Janice, could enjoy London’s theatres, operas and restaurants, and where Janice could explore and buy antiques.”
Andrew and his parents previously had a close and loving relationship, but things became tense between him and his mother, who was the sole owner of the Chelsea property, in 2019 after his father died and Mr Grijns got into a legal dispute with an old friend following their divorce.
He had previously requested that his three brothers receive a larger share of the London properties due to possible problems with US tax authorities if he inherited American assets upon his mother’s death.
To that end, he wrote an email in 2015 announcing his intention to leave her two-thirds of the value of the London house, with the remaining third to be shared between his siblings. Mr Grijns responded by describing himself as “lucky and grateful”.
However, in 2020, he had a bad falling out with his mother. The judge said heated emails were sent in June 2020 in which Mr Grijns “made a series of complaints against his mother, accusing her of slander and bullying and defying him”.
“Janice emailed Andrew, accusing him of wanting her dead so she could have the property, and told him to ‘get out of my house as soon as possible’ and that she couldn’t live there hating and slandering him.”
The dispute escalated further and Mr Grijns later attempted to have his mother imprisoned in August 2023 over her attempts to retake her home. However, the judge has now rejected Mr Grijns’ claim.
Giving his decision, he said: “Andrew’s primary claim was that he had a substantial two-thirds beneficial interest in the property through the application of the doctrine of estoppel.”
“His case is that from 2004, when he was in his late 20s, he chose to shape his life around the implicit, but not explicit, promises made to him by his parents about the future of the estate.”
He himself says that on this basis he improved his property and, most importantly, avoided other opportunities to establish his own life in his own home, so that his mother was now at a disadvantage by reneging on these alleged promises.
“He did all this even though, as he stated in his trial witness statement, the property was too large for his needs, the decor and furnishings of the property were old-fashioned and apparently not to his taste, the property was expensive to maintain and repair, and even though, as he said, he preferred to buy a place of his own.
“I have to say that I find this scenario completely implausible and, frankly, completely unrealistic. It just doesn’t ring true, especially from someone like Andrew.”
“As the documentary evidence clearly shows, and his testimony at the hearing makes abundantly clear, Andrew is a thoroughly selfish individual whose greatest concern is entirely for himself.
“When Andrew was cross-examined he could not find the strength to acknowledge the significant advantage his parents had given him in being allowed to build a home on the property over many years.
“I think it’s an indication of the extent of his self-absorption.
“However, the truth is that Andrew has had the opportunity to live at a very modest cost in a substantial property in a desirable area of London for the better part of a quarter of a century. This opportunity also allowed Andrew to pursue his well-paid career in the financial sector for most of the period covered in this case.”
“Andrew’s real reason for staying on the property, living there, and making improvements to it has nothing to do with promises or assurances, but only his own desires and convenience. In short, it suited him to stay.”
“It is easy to understand why Andrew stayed on the property and how he was enabled to live what could be described in local terms as ‘the good life’.
“Andrew was prepared to ‘build’ a case and put forward assurances that were never given by his mother, in the hope that a settlement would be reached and the allegation would not be fully investigated at a trial.
“It also seems to me that Andrew, in addition to the implicit pressure in bringing false proceedings against an elderly woman, chose to increase the pressure on his mother by both raising and defending issues relating to her capacity and later in the day by bringing contempt proceedings against her.”
The judge rejected Andrew’s claim, declaring him a “trespasser” since August 1, 2023, and ordered him to pay his mother £85,000 a year from then until he leaves, as well as accounting for the rent he has received from renting part of the property since May 2023.
