PHILIPSBURG:--- In a ruling delivered on December 18, 2025, the Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten rejected a request for a preliminary injunction filed by Marcelle and Co BV, trading as Babacool, against the Minister of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Traffic and Telecommunication (TEATT) Grisha Heyliger Marten.
The case highlights critical standards in Sint Maarten’s administrative law regarding business licensing and the high threshold required for obtaining interim relief during ongoing legal disputes.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a license application submitted by Babacool on March 21, 2025. The company sought an operational license for “Coffeehouse/Restaurant A," which included a request for permission to host live music, entertainment (shows), and provide a dancing area.
On July 18, 2025, the Minister granted the primary operational license for the establishment. However, this initial approval was limited to background music with a maximum sound level of 60 dB. Notably, Babacool did not appeal this initial limitation at the time.
The conflict escalated on December 4, 2025, when the Minister issued a subsequent decision formally rejecting Babacool's specific request for entertainment (shows/performances) and dancing capabilities. In response, Babacool filed an administrative appeal on December 9, 2025, followed closely by a request for a preliminary injunction (a provisional ruling) on December 11, 2025, pursuant to Article 85 of the National Ordinance on Administrative Jurisdiction (Lar).
The Legal Arguments
Babacool sought to have the rejection suspended and requested an immediate court order compelling the Minister to provisionally grant permission for live music, entertainment, and dancing while the main appeal was pending.
The Petitioner's Position:
Babacool argued that the restriction severely limited their business operations. They claimed that the inability to organize events placed them at a competitive disadvantage compared to neighboring businesses that did not face similar restrictions. Consequently, the company argued it was suffering financial losses that would compound over time.
The Respondent's Position:
The Minister of TEATT, represented by counsel, maintained the validity of the decision. During the hearing, representatives from the Department of Economic Licenses and the TEATT Inspectorate were present to support the Ministry's stance.
The Court’s Reasoning
The presiding judge, Mr. B. Martinez-Hammer, focused the analysis on the legal standard for granting a preliminary injunction under Article 85 of the Lar. For such a measure to be granted, the petitioner must demonstrate "disproportionate disadvantage" (onevenredig nadeel) that makes it impossible to wait for the outcome of the main appeal procedure.
The Court found that Babacool failed to meet this threshold for the following reasons:
- Lack of Financial Emergency: While Babacool argued they were suffering financial harm, the Court noted that there was no evidence suggesting the business was in a financial crisis or facing immediate insolvency due to the decision.
- Existing Operational Capacity: The Court highlighted that Babacool holds a valid license (issued in July 2025) to operate as a coffeehouse/restaurant with background music. This allows the business to function and generate revenue, even without the added entertainment permissions.
- Alternative Avenues Available: The judge pointed out that the lack of a permanent entertainment license does not prevent the business from hosting events entirely. Babacool retains the option to apply for incidental permits for specific events. Indeed, the Court noted that the company had successfully applied for and received permits for several dates in December 2025 and for the upcoming New Year's Eve celebrations.
The Verdict
The Court concluded that Babacool did not demonstrate a level of disproportionate disadvantage that would necessitate immediate judicial intervention. Since the business can continue to operate and generate income, and has successfully utilized incidental permits for peak times, there was no urgent ground to suspend the Minister's decision.
Decision: The request for a preliminary injunction was denied.
Implications for Business and Administrative Law
This verdict reinforces a key principle in Sint Maarten’s administrative law: financial disadvantage alone is often insufficient grounds for urgent interim relief.
For businesses seeking to challenge government licensing decisions, this ruling clarifies that:
- Proving Urgency is Essential: Courts are reluctant to interfere with administrative decisions via preliminary injunction unless there is an immediate threat of irreversible harm (such as bankruptcy).
- Lost Profit vs. Business Viability: There is a legal distinction between "earning less profit than desired" and "being unable to operate." As long as the core business license allows for revenue generation, courts may not view the denial of additional permissions as an emergency.
- Incidental Permits as Mitigation: The availability of temporary permits for special events can undermine arguments regarding the urgent need for a permanent entertainment license during litigation.
