A financier who sued his mum for £2.6m, claiming he was wrongfully “disinherited” has been left with a £1m court bill.
Andrew Grijns carved himself a successful career in the London finance world whilst being “allowed” to live in his rich American parents’ £3.85m Chelsea townhouse for over 20 years.
But following the death of his father Leendert Grijns in 2019, he and his mum Janice Grijns, 80, fell out badly, with Mr Grijns accusing her “of vilifying and bullying him and turning against him,” whilst she accused him of “wanting her dead so that he could have the property.”
She went on to tell him to “get out of my house as soon as possible” and “that he could not live there hating and maligning her,” sparking a court clash between the pair, with each claiming rights to the house and branding the other a “trespasser”.
Mr Grijns sued his mum and even launched a bid to get her committed to prison, claiming that he had been “promised” he would be handed two thirds of the value of the four-storey house in Bury Walk, Chelsea – around £2.6m – and arguing that he had lived there to his own detriment for decades rather than moving on and buying his own property.
He claimed he had “shaped his life around…promises made to him by his parents as to the future of the property” and done so “despite the fact that the décor and arrangements of the property were old-fashioned and not, it would seem, to his taste…and despite the fact, as he says, that he would have preferred to buy a place of his own,” a court heard.
But a judge at the High Court has now thrown out his claim to his mum’s millions, dismissing his argument that he was “disadvantaged” by living in his parents’ property for most of his adult life.
Master Timothy Bowles said: “The reality…is that Andrew has had the opportunity to live in a substantial property in a desirable part of London at very modest cost for the best part of a quarter of a century.”
“Andrew…is a person who is entirely self-absorbed and whose paramount concern is entirely for himself.”
“Andrew has, with some regularity, insulted and, to use the vernacular, ‘bad mouthed’ his mother. He has accused her of vilifying and bullying him and of being evil, destructive and wicked. He has accused her…of senility and dementia.”
“The true and stark position…was that Andrew chose to remain and make his life at the property, not because of any assurances made – there were none – but because it suited him.”
After dismissing his £2.6m claim, he went on to order Mr Grijns to leave the house, adding that he now faces a massive court bill for the row, likely to be over £1m, with estimated costs on his mum’s side alone reaching around £750,000.
He will also have to pay his own legal costs, plus £85,000 a year to mark the time he stayed in the house after he was told to leave in August 2023, as well as account for rent he received for letting part of it out.
London’s High Court heard that Mr Grijns parents – realtor turned academic Janice and banker Leendert – bought the four-bedroomed, Georgian terraced house, with separate basement granny flat, in 1994, with Mr Grijns moving in by 1999.
“Mr Grijns’ banking career led him to spend a considerable time in London and that was the context, or a part of it, for the purchase of the property,” said the judge.
“The property was purchased in 1994, in part to provide a base for Mr Grijns when working in London and in part as a holiday home, from which they, perhaps specifically Janice, could enjoy London’s theatres, opera and restaurants, and from which Janice could explore and purchase antiques.”
Andrew and his parents had previously had a close and loving relationship, but after his dad died in 2019 and Mr Grijns went through a divorce, before becoming locked in a legal dispute with a former friend, things became strained between him and his mum – by then the sole owner of the Chelsea property.
He had previously requested that he receive a larger share of the London property than his three brothers due to problems he thought might arise with US tax officials if he inherited American assets on his mother’s death.
To that end, in 2015 she had written an email explaining her intention to leave him two thirds of the value of the London house, with the remaining third to be split between his brothers, to which Mr Grijns replied, describing himself as “lucky and grateful”.
But in 2020, he and his mum fell out badly. Heated emails were exchanged in June 2020, with Mr Grijns making a “series of complaints against his mother, accusing her of vilifying and bullying him and turning against him,” said the judge.
“Janice emailed Andrew, accusing him of wanting her dead, so that he could have the property and telling him to ‘get out of my house as soon as possible’, that he could not live there hating and maligning her.”
The falling out worsened, with Mr Grijns later attempting to get his mum committed to prison over her attempts to regain possession of her house in August 2023. But the judge has now dismissed Mr Grijns’s claim.
Giving his ruling, he said: “Andrew’s primary claim had been that, by way of the application of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, he was entitled to a substantial beneficial interest – two thirds – in the property.”
His case is that from 2004, when he would have been in his late 20s, he has elected to shape his life around implicit, but not explicit, promises made to him by his parents as to the future of the property.”
He has, on that basis, he says, improved the property and, most materially, eschewed other opportunities to make his own life in his own home, such that his mother having resiled from these alleged promises, he is now disadvantaged.
“He has done all this, as he sets out in his trial witness statement, despite the fact that the property was far too large for his needs, despite the fact that the décor and arrangements of the property were old-fashioned and not, it would seem, to his taste, despite the fact that the property was expensive to maintain and keep in repair and despite the fact, as he says, that he would have preferred to buy a place of his own.
“I have to say that I find this scenario wholly implausible and, candidly, utterly unrealistic. It particularly does not ring true in respect of someone like Andrew.
“Andrew, as the documentary trail clearly shows and as emerged, with great clarity, from his evidence at trial is a person who is entirely self-absorbed and whose paramount concern is entirely for himself.
“Andrew, when cross-examined, did not find it in him to acknowledge the considerable advantages that he had been given by his parents in being allowed to make his home at the property over very many years.
“That is, I think, an indication of the extent of his self-absorption.
“The reality, though, is that Andrew has had the opportunity to live in a substantial property in a desirable part of London at very modest cost for the best part of a quarter of a century. That opportunity has also enabled Andrew, throughout most of the period under consideration in this case, to pursue his well-paid career in the finance industry.
“The true reason as to why Andrew remained at the property, made his life there and, to the extent that he did, carried out improvements to the property, has nothing to do with promises, or assurances, but everything to do with his own wishes and convenience. Put shortly, it suited him to stay.
“It is easy to see why Andrew remained at the property and how he was enabled to live what, in vernacular terms, might be described as the ‘good life’.
“Andrew was prepared to ‘construct’ a case and assert assurances by his mother that were never made, in the hope, not realised, that a settlement would be achieved and the claim would not be fully investigated at a trial.
“It further seems to me that, over and above the pressure implicit in the pursuit of unfounded litigation against an elderly woman, Andrew chose to add to the pressures imposed upon his mother both by raising and pleading issues as to her capacity and then, late in the day, by issuing contempt proceedings against her.”
The judge dismissed Andrew’s claim, declared him to have been a “trespasser” in the house since August 1, 2023, and ordered that he pay his mum £85,000 per year from that date until he gets out, as well as accounting for rent he received letting part of the property since May 2023.
