A finance professional who took legal action against his mother for cutting him out of her will following a heated dispute over her Chelsea property has lost his £2.6 million lawsuit.

Andrew Grijns resided in his parents’ four-story townhouse for over two decades, benefiting from a substantial rent reduction amounting to £1 million, while establishing a thriving career in London’s financial sector.

However, after the death of his father, Leendert Grijns, in 2019, tensions escalated with his mother, Janice Grijns, 80. Andrew accused her of ‘vilifying and bullying’ him, while Janice alleged that he ‘wished her dead to claim the property.’

The conflict reached a peak when Janice demanded her son leave her house immediately, leading to a legal battle over the ownership of the £3.85 million residence in West London.

In retaliation, Andrew attempted to have his mother incarcerated, claiming he was ‘promised’ two-thirds of the home’s value, approximately £2.6 million.

He further expressed grievances about enduring her ‘old-fashioned’ interior design for 25 years during his extended stay in the family residence.

A judge at London’s High Court has now thrown out his claim to Janice’s millions, dismissing the argument he was ‘disadvantaged’ by living in his parents’ plush property for most of his adult life.

The financier has been ordered to leave the property, with Judge Timothy Bowles accepting the mother’s claim that her son has been ‘trespassing’ by standing his ground.

Financier Andrew Grijns, pictured, sued his own mother when she disinherited him after a bitter row over the ownership of her Chelsea townhouse and has now lost a £2.6million court battle

Pictured: The £3.4m four-storey home in which Andrew stayed for more than 20 years. The feud saw his mother Janice order her son to ‘get out of my house as soon as possible’

He now faces a massive court bill for the row, likely more than £1m, with estimated costs on Janice’s side alone reaching around £750,000, the judge added.

Andrew will also have to pay his own legal costs, plus £85k a year to compensate for the time he stayed in the house after he was told to leave in August 2023. 

He must also account for any rent he received for letting part of the property out.

Mr 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.’

The court heard that Andrew’s parents – realtor-turned-academic Janice and banker Leendert – bought the four-bedroom, Georgian terraced house with a separate basement granny flat in 1994, with Andrew moving in by 1999.

In return, Andrew even launched a bid to send his mother, pictured, to prison, arguing he had been ‘promised’ two thirds of the value of the house in Bury Walk – around £2.6m

A judge at London’s High Court has now thrown out his claim to Janice’s millions, dismissing the argument he was ‘disadvantaged’ by living in his parents’ plush property, pictured 

The financier had previously enjoyed a close and loving relationship with his parents but after his father died and Andrew went through a divorce, things became strained between him and his mother – the sole owner of the Chelsea property.

He had requested 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.

In 2015 Janice wrote an email explaining her intention to leave him two thirds of its value, with the remaining third to be split between his brothers.

Andrew replied, describing himself as ‘lucky and grateful’.

But in 2020, he and his mother fell out badly. Heated emails were exchanged, with Andrew making a ‘series of complaints against his mother, accusing her of vilifying and bullying him and turning against him,’ the judge told the court. 

Mr Bowles said: ‘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.’

He later claimed that he had lived there to his own detriment for decades rather than moving on and buying his own property.

Andrew also 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’.

The financier has been ordered to leave the property, with Judge Timothy Bowles accepting the mother’s claim that her son has been ‘trespassing’ by standing his ground

The row all started when his father Leendert Grijns died in 2019. Before then, the family had enjoyed a more tranquil relationship

He later attempted to get Janice committed to prison over her attempts to regain possession of her house in August 2023.

Giving his ruling, Mr Bowles said: ‘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.’

The judge told the court he found this ‘wholly implausible and, candidly, utterly unrealistic’.

‘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,’ he added. ‘Put shortly, it suited him to stay.

‘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.’