PHILIPSBURG:--- The Court of First Instance of Sint Maarten has delivered a decisive ruling in a summary judgment regarding a property dispute between two Simpson Bay Beach establishments. In a verdict handed down on December 19, 2025, the court ruled in favor of Karakter N.V. ("Karakter"), confirming their exclusive right to use the parking lot situated adjacent to their premises and behind the neighboring establishment, Marcelle and Co B.V., trading as Babacool ("Babacool").

The dispute centered on a plot of land used as a parking facility. Both businesses claimed entitlement to allow their guests to park there, leading to tensions and legal action.

Background of the Case

Karakter, which has operated a bar and restaurant at the location since 2008, initiated the proceedings. Their claim was based on a long-standing lease agreement with White Sands N.V., the entity holding the long lease (erfpacht) for several plots in the area. Karakter argued that this agreement granted them exclusive usage rights to the parking area (cadastral plot SB 095/1981).

Babacool, a newer beach restaurant that opened in August 2025, argued that they were also entitled to use the lot. They relied on their own lease agreement with a different entity, Patula N.V., and contested Karakter's exclusive claim. Tensions escalated when Babacool staff allegedly began directing their guests to use the lot and removing Karakter’s signage.

Karakter sought an immediate ban on Babacool's use of the lot, citing a need for parking for their upcoming reopening following a fire in October 2025.

The Court's Findings

The judge, Mr. L.J. Saarloos, examined the lease agreements and land registry documents presented by both sides. The ruling highlighted several key points that led to the decision in favor of Karakter:

• Valid Lease Agreement: The court confirmed that Karakter holds a valid lease agreement with White Sands N.V. that includes the specific plot used for parking. Although the government ended the long lease with White Sands in March 2025, the court ruled that the Land of Sint Maarten, as the land owner, is legally obligated to honor the existing tenant lease with Karakter.

• Babacool’s Lease Limitation: The court analyzed Babacool’s lease with Patula N.V. and noted that it covered four specific plots adjacent to the parking lot, but not the parking lot itself. While Babacool’s lease mentioned a "designated parking area," the judge determined this could not refer to the disputed plot (SB 095/1981) because Patula N.V. did not own rights to it.

• Exclusive Rights: Consequently, the court found that Karakter is

• Exclusive Rights: Consequently, the court found that Karakter is the sole tenant with usage rights to the specific parking facility in question. Therefore, they have the right to determine who uses it.

The Ruling

The court granted most of Karakter's demands in the convention (main claim) and rejected Babacool's counterclaims (reconvention). The judgment includes the following orders:

1. Immediate Prohibition: Babacool is effectively banned from using the parking facility or allowing their guests/staff to use it.

2. No Instructions to Third Parties: Babacool is forbidden from giving parking instructions to third parties regarding the lot.

3. Removal of Property: Babacool must remove all property from the parking lot.

4. Social Media Rectification: Within 48 hours, Babacool is ordered to post a specific statement on all their social media pages. The statement must clarify that the parking facilities fall under the exclusive right of Karakter N.V. and that Babacool guests must park outside the gate. This notice must be repeated weekly on Mondays for two months.

5. Penalty Payments: Failure to comply with these orders will result in penalty payments of USD 2,000 per violation, plus USD 1,000 per day the violation continues, up to a maximum of USD 50,000.

Counterclaims Dismissed

Babacool had filed a counterclaim demanding that Karakter withdraw a formal complaint lodged with the Ministry of TEATT regarding the parking dispute. Babacool argued this complaint damaged their reputation. The court dismissed this claim, stating that Babacool failed to prove the complaint was unlawful. The request for Karakter to stop blocking Babacool's access was also denied, based on the court’s finding that Karakter holds the exclusive rights.

Conclusion

The judge declared the verdict immediately enforceable, meaning the orders take effect right away, regardless of any potential appeal. Babacool was also ordered to pay the legal costs for both the main proceedings and the counterclaims.

While the ruling is strict, the judge noted in the closing remarks that the parties remain neighbors. The court suggested that, practically speaking, the parties could still choose to negotiate a temporary usage agreement—possibly involving compensation—especially during periods where one business might be closed, though the legal right to decide rests firmly with Karakter.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

PHILIPSBURG:---  The Police Force of Sint Maarten (KPSM) confirms the arrest of a suspect in connection with a deadly shooting that occurred on January 22nd, 2022, on Zozo-Moran Drive in Cole Bay.

The suspect, identified by the initials D.M.P., a French national, is believed to have been involved in the fatal shooting in which a male victim was shot and killed. Following the incident, the suspect fled Sint Maarten and remained outside the jurisdiction for several years.

On December 18th, 2025, officers of the Police Force of Sint Maarten arrested the suspect upon his arrival at Princess Juliana International Airport (PJIA). The arrest was carried out without incident. The suspect is currently being held in custody pending further investigation.

The Major Crimes Team of KPSM has been actively pursuing this suspect internationally since the incident, working closely with local, regional, and international law enforcement partners. This arrest represents a significant breakthrough in the ongoing investigation into this fatal shooting.

KPSM reiterates that time and distance are not shields against justice. Serious crimes will continue to be investigated, regardless of how much time has passed or how far suspects may have traveled to evade the law.

The Police Force of Sint Maarten extends its sincere gratitude to all local and international partners, both at home and abroad, whose cooperation and assistance were instrumental in bringing this suspect into custody.

The investigation remains ongoing. Further information will be shared as it becomes available.

KPSM Press Release.

PHILIPSBURG:---  The integrity of the judicial process in Sint Maarten is under intense scrutiny following serious allegations that the Court of First Instance was misled into issuing a premature and unlawful ruling in a high-profile case involving the Sint Maarten Medical Center (SMMC).

Despite plaintiff Terence Albert Jandroep having fully complied with a court-ordered financial obligation well within the prescribed deadline, attorneys representing SMMC allegedly withheld material information from the Court. As a result, a judgment was issued seven hours before the legal deadline expired,  based on the demonstrably false premise that no payment had been made.

~Premature ruling by Higher Court unexplainable~

The Higher Court ruling should, by law and procedural logic, have been rendered only after the expiration of the court-imposed deadline, not on the same day while the deadline was still running. Until 5:00 PM on December 16, the plaintiff remained fully entitled to comply with the order to provide security. Issuing a ruling at 10:05 AM, seven hours before the deadline expired, extinguished that right prematurely and created the false appearance of non-compliance. Such timing is incompatible with basic principles of due process, legal certainty, and fair access to justice, particularly where proof of payment already existed and was in the possession of the opposing party’s legal representatives.

The Facts:  A Timeline That Raises Alarming Questions
The controversy arises from proceedings concerning security for costs (case SXM202500205), directly connected to the main appeal on alleged medical record fraud (case SXM2025H00030).

• Court-ordered deadline: Tuesday, December 16, 5:00 PM, Verdict 18 November 2025
• Monday, December 15: Mr. Jandroep successfully transferred Cg 5,000 to the Stichting Derdengelden (trust account) of SMMC’s hired law firm of Curacao, which is legally immune because of its entanglement in a conflict of interest construction
• Tuesday, December 16: Although the funds were indeed received and under their control, SMMC’s attorneys allegedly failed to inform the Higher Court officials
• Tuesday, December 16, 10:05 AM, same morning: The Court issued a ruling declaring the appeal inadmissible, seven hours before the deadline, on the erroneous assumption of non-payment

The payment is verifiable through bank records and was made on the express instruction of SMMC’s legal counsel prior to the verdict on November 18, 2025.

“Quo Vadimus?”  A Legal System at a Crossroads
Mr. Jandroep, a forensic risk analyst and the plaintiff in the proceedings, condemned the events in strong terms:

“When a powerful institution and its legal representatives abandon the duty of truthfulness to block a former Covid survivor's access to justice, the rule of law itself is endangered. 

Quo Vadimus?
Where are we heading when bank records, deadlines, and basic procedural integrity are ignored by those sworn to uphold the law?”

Disciplinary Complaints and Institutional Liability
An official disciplinary complaint has been filed with the Dean of the Bar Association against the involved attorneys, alleging violations of the Duty of Truthfulness under Article 18c of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In parallel, the Board of Directors of SMMC has been formally held liable for:

• all damages suffered by the plaintiff, and
• the full actual legal costs incurred in the appeal.

The Underlying Issue: Medical Record Fraud
According to Covid Survivor Jandroep, the procedural maneuver is a premeditated attempt to prevent substantive judicial review of the main case. That case contains forensic evidence alleging systemic manipulation and falsification of medical records within the Sint Maarten Medical Center.

Blocking the appeal on procedural grounds, he argues, serves only one purpose: to shield the merits of the case from public and judicial scrutiny.

Ultimatum and Escalation
Mr. Jandroep has issued a 24-hour ultimatum to SMMC and its legal representatives to:

• voluntarily correct what he describes as a procedural ambush, and
• accept full legal and financial liability.

Failure to do so will result in immediate escalation to:

• the Common Court of Justice, and
• relevant international legal and oversight bodies.

 The facts are apparent, the evidence is physically verifiable, but up to what level is this medical case rigged?