Financier's Multi-Million Pound Claim Against Mother Dismissed
A London-based financier has been left facing a legal bill estimated at over £1 million after a High Court judge dismissed his £2.6 million claim against his own mother concerning a valuable Chelsea townhouse. Andrew Grijns, who built a successful career in the city's finance sector, had sued his 80-year-old mother Janice Grijns, alleging he had been wrongfully disinherited from the £3.85 million property where he had lived for more than two decades.
The Family Breakdown and Legal Battle
The dispute emerged following the death of Andrew's father, Leendert Grijns, in 2019. The court heard that the previously close relationship between mother and son deteriorated dramatically. Andrew accused his mother of "vilifying and bullying him", while she countered by alleging he "wanted her dead so that he could have the property". This culminated in Janice Grijns telling her son to "get out of my house as soon as possible" in June 2020, sparking the legal confrontation where each party labelled the other a trespasser.
The Georgian terraced house on Bury Walk, featuring four bedrooms and a separate basement granny flat, was purchased by Andrew's parents in 1994. Andrew had moved in by 1999, with the property serving as a base for his banking career and a holiday home for his parents to enjoy London's cultural offerings.
Judge's Scathing Assessment and Financial Fallout
Master Timothy Bowles delivered a withering assessment of Andrew Grijns's case at London's High Court. The judge found Andrew's claim that he had "shaped his life around" implicit promises about inheriting the property to be "wholly implausible and utterly unrealistic". He stated: "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."
The judge characterised Andrew as "entirely self-absorbed" and noted he had regularly insulted his mother, even accusing her of senility and dementia. Master Bowles determined that Andrew remained at the property "because it suited him", not because of any assurances made.
The court dismissed Andrew's claim under the doctrine of proprietary estoppel and ordered him to vacate the property. In addition to his own legal costs, he must pay:
- His mother's legal costs, estimated around £750,000
- £85,000 per year from August 2023 until he leaves
- Account for rent received from letting part of the property since May 2023
The total financial impact is likely to exceed £1 million, marking a costly conclusion to the family dispute.
