London financier spent over 20 years living in his mother’s £3.85 million Chelsea home before demanding a £2.6 million share; judge rejected his claim and ordered him to pay £85,000 annually | World News

Living in a family-owned property for decades does not necessarily give someone a legal claim to ownership, even when there have been discussions about inheritance. That distinction became central to a dispute involving London financier Andrew Grijns and his 80-year-old mother, Janice Grijns, over a four-bedroom townhouse in Chelsea. Andrew had lived in the property for more than 20 years, but after his father’s death, the relationship between mother and son deteriorated. He eventually went to court seeking two-thirds of the house’s value, around £2.6 million, as reported by The Independent. The High Court rejected his claim, declared him a trespasser and ordered him to pay £85,000 for every year he remained after August 2023.

The £3.85 million Chelsea townhouse Andrew lived in for more than 20 years

The property at the centre of the dispute is a four-storey Georgian terraced house in Bury Walk, Chelsea. Reportedly, Andrew’s parents, Janice and Leendert Grijns, bought the property in 1994. The Chelsea townhouse was valued at approximately £3.85 million in July 2024. The building has four bedrooms and a separate basement flat, providing accommodation as well as a base for the family when they spent time in London.Leendert worked in banking, while Janice had a background in real estate before moving into academia. Their son was also building a career in London’s financial sector, which was one of the reasons behind the purchase. The family wanted a place where he could stay while working in the capital, but the house also served as a holiday property for his parents.Janice used the London base to enjoy the city’s theatres, opera and restaurants, as well as to pursue her interest in antiques. Andrew moved into the townhouse around 1999 and continued living there for much of his adult life.The arrangement lasted more than two decades. During that period, he was able to maintain a home in one of London’s expensive neighbourhoods without purchasing a separate property of his own.

How an inheritance discussion became a £2.6 million claim

The disagreement was rooted partly in conversations about what would happen to the Chelsea property after the parents’ deaths. Andrew had asked for a larger share of the London house than his three brothers, citing possible complications involving US tax authorities if he inherited American assets following his mother’s death.In 2015, Janice sent him an email setting out her intention to leave him two-thirds of the property’s value, with the remaining third divided between his brothers. Andrew responded by describing himself as lucky and grateful.That correspondence later became important to his legal argument. He maintained that his parents had given him assurances about the future of the property and that he had made decisions about his life on the understanding that he would eventually receive a substantial share.His claim was based on the legal doctrine of proprietary estoppel. Andrew argued that he had organised his life around promises made by his parents from around 2004. He said he had stayed in the family home, carried out improvements and passed up opportunities to purchase somewhere independently because he believed he would eventually receive two-thirds of the Chelsea property.He also argued that remaining in the house had involved sacrifices. According to his case, the building was larger than he needed, its traditional interiors were not to his taste and maintaining it was expensive. He claimed he would otherwise have preferred to establish a home of his own.

The relationship deteriorated after his father’s death

The family relationship had reportedly been close before the dispute began. Things changed after Leendert died in 2019, leaving Janice as the sole owner of the Chelsea property.Andrew was also going through a divorce and had become involved in a legal disagreement with a former friend. Tensions between him and his mother increased, with both making serious accusations during their exchanges.In June 2020, the pair exchanged heated emails. Andrew accused Janice of bullying him, turning against him and attempting to damage his reputation. His mother, in turn, accused him of wanting her dead so that he could obtain the house.Janice eventually made her position clear, telling her son that he should leave the property as soon as possible. She did not believe they could continue living under the same roof while he was speaking about her in such terms.

Judge rejects son’s claim and criticises his conduct towards his elderly mother

The case was heard at the High Court, where Master Timothy Bowles examined Andrew’s claims and the documentary evidence presented during the proceedings. The judge was not persuaded that Andrew had remained in the property because of promises about future ownership. He considered that the arrangement had suited Andrew, allowing him to live in a substantial Chelsea home at relatively little expense while pursuing a well-paid career in finance.Bowles also questioned why Andrew would have chosen to remain in a property that he described as too large, expensive to maintain and unsuitable for his preferences if he had genuinely been making significant sacrifices in reliance on his parents’ assurances.The judge took issue with Andrew’s failure to recognise the advantages he had received from his parents over the years. His assessment of the financier was particularly critical, describing him as self-absorbed and saying that his main concern appeared to be his own interests.The ruling rejected the suggestion that Andrew had shaped his adult life because of binding assurances from his parents. The judge concluded that personal convenience, rather than an expectation of inheriting the property, explained why he had stayed.He also criticised Andrew’s conduct during the proceedings, including the pressure placed on his elderly mother through litigation. The case had involved questions about Janice’s mental capacity, alongside a later attempt by Andrew to have her committed to prison over her efforts to regain possession of the house.

£85,000 for every year he stayed after August 2023

The financial consequences of the judgment extended beyond the dismissal of the £2.6 million claim. The judge declared Andrew to have been trespassing at the property from August 1, 2023, after his mother had demanded that he leave.The judge ordered Andrew to pay mesne profits at an annual rate of £85,000 from August 1, 2023, until he handed back possession. The amount was based on the rental value of the entire property, including the separate basement flat, and was intended to compensate his mother for his continued occupation after he had become a trespasser.Andrew must also account for rental income he received from letting part of the property from May 2023. The court’s order therefore covered not only his continued residence but also money generated through the property’s use during the disputed period.The legal costs added another substantial burden. The bill was expected to exceed £1 million, with Janice’s legal expenses alone estimated at approximately £750,000. Andrew would also have to meet his own legal costs. The financial outcome left him facing a considerable bill after losing his attempt to secure a two-thirds interest in the house.Disclaimer: This article is based on information publicly reported. The Times of India has not independently verified the property valuation, financial claims or circumstances of the family dispute. The legal findings and court orders are reported as stated in the judgment.