A “SELF-absorbed” son who claimed he was axed from his mum’s millions after insulting her “old-fashioned” home has lost a court battle.
Andrew Grijns lived in his wealthy parents’ £3.85million Chelsea townhouse for over 20 years – enjoying a discounted rent that saved him £1million.
Andrew Grijns has lost a multi-million case against his motherCredit: Champion News Service
The financier had lived at the townhouse in Chelsea for 20 yearsCredit: Champion News Service
He accused mum Janice of being a ‘tresspasser’ in her own homeCredit: Champion News Service
But following the death of his dad Lee in 2019, he and mum Janice Grijns, 80, fell out badly.
Successful financier Andrew accused her of “vilifying and bullying him and turning against him”, while she claimed he “wanted her dead” so he could have the property.
Janice eventually booted her son out of the house – arguing he could not “live there hating and maligning her”.
The fallout led to a battle as both Janice and Andrew accusing the other of being a “trespasser”.
Andrew sued his mum and even launched a bid to get her committed to – claiming he was “promised” two thirds of the value of the four-storey house – around £2.6m.
He also argued he had lived there to his own detriment for decades rather than moving on and buying his own property.
Andrew claimed he had “shaped his life around promises made to him by his parents as to the future of the property” and did so “despite the fact the décor and arrangements of the property were old-fashioned and not, it would seem, to his taste”.
But a judge at the High Court has now thrown out his claim to his mum’s millions and dismissed his argument he was “disadvantaged” by living in his parents’ plush 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 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 .
“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.”
Andrew has now been ordered to leave the house and faces being saddled with a huge court bill that could reach more than £1million – including his mum’s £750,000 court costs.
He will also have to pay his own legal bill, plus £85,000 a year to mark the time he stayed in the house after he was told to leave in August 2023.
The High Court heard Andrew’s parents bought the property in 1994, with Andrew moving in five years later.
In 2015, his mum wrote 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.
Andrew had requested a higher share due to tax fears and said he was “lucky and grateful”.
But when the relationship soured, he made a “series of complaints” against his mum and the pair shared a number of heated emails.
The falling out worsened, with Andrew later attempting to get his mum committed to prison over her attempts to regain possession of her house in August 2023.
But the judge ruled Andrew had been occupying his mum’s house as a “trespasser” for more than two years.
Giving his ruling, he said: “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 said the swanky townhouse was ‘old-fashioned’Credit: Champion News Service
He fell out with his mum following the death of dad LeeCredit: Champion News Service 
