Court rejects bid to halt West Vue construction, orders access road, a procedural win for VROMI

REAT BAY--The Court of First Instance in St. Maarten has rejected an urgent request by neighboring residents to stop construction of the West Vue development, while ordering developer NLGY Development Ltd. to build an access route that allows residents and emergency services to reach the adjoining homes. The December 16, 2025 lands as a clear vindication for the Ministry of VROMI on the central question the residents tried to push into civil court: forcing the Minister to shut down a permitted project through summary proceedings.

At its core, the judgment draws a line between private disputes between citizens and developers, and the government's administrative permitting and enforcement framework. The court made clear the case was not about whether VROMI unlawfully issued a building permit, instead it was about whether the developer complied with a prior settlement and whether the residents faced unacceptable safety risks.

The residents, who live in the apartment complex directly next to the West Vue site, asked the court to do three big things:

1. Force NLGY to build a paved access road within a tight deadline, with penalties for non-compliance.

2. Stop all construction until safety concerns were addressed, relying heavily on a geotechnical risk assessment commissioned through Geobest.

3. Compel the Minister and the Country to end what they described as a dangerous situation, arguing emergency services could not reach their homes.

The judge refused to halt the project in this summary proceeding. The court found NLGY had produced a detailed geotechnical engineering report that meaningfully contested the residents’ “no soil investigation” assumption, and held that a full expert battle belongs in a merits case, not a fast-track injunction.

The court ordered NLGY to construct an access route consistent with the parties’ earlier January 24, 2025 settlement, setting a deadline of January 31, 2026, and attaching a penalty of USD 1,000 per day up to USD 100,000 for non-compliance.

Finally, claims against the Minister and the Country mostly failed: The court declared the residents' claim inadmissible on the parts tied to alleged safety risks stemming from the civil works permits, and rejected the remaining claims seeking to force government intervention through a construction stop. It also ordered the residents to pay the Minister’s and Country’s legal costs, assessed at Cg 1,500.

This reads as vindication for VROMI because the residents tried to use civil summary proceedings to pressure the Minister into undoing, or effectively neutralizing, decisions already sitting in the administrative domain. The court refused.

The key legal logic was straightforward: when an administrative decision can be challenged through administrative procedures, civil court should not become a parallel route to relitigate the same ground. The judge leaned on the principle that government decisions carry binding force in civil court when the administrative route exists and is being used, and noted that the residents had in fact appealed the civil works permits in administrative court, where the dispute properly belongs.

That approach protects the integrity of VROMI’s permitting system, not because the ministry is beyond scrutiny, but because there is a structured track for scrutiny, including objections, appeals, and interim relief through the administrative court when warranted.

It also matters that the court reinforced something that gets lost in public disputes around large developments: a ministry cannot be treated as a substitute party to a private agreement. The earlier settlement about how residents would reach their property was a private-law arrangement between neighbors and the developer, not a contract the Minister signed onto. The court agreed VROMI had no obligations under that settlement, and that a construction stop is an administrative tool tied to permits and compliance, not a mechanism to enforce private undertakings.

One of the most striking sections of the decision is the court’s discomfort with the information gap that fueled the residents’ expert report. The residents’ geotechnical advisor concluded, based on limited documents, that no soil investigation had been done and urged an immediate stop. In court, NLGY produced a geotechnical engineering report showing an investigation had in fact been carried out. The judge explicitly questioned why that report was not made available to the residents’ expert when documents were being accessed through VROMI.

The court also sharpened the narrative around emergency access. A Fire Department report from January 2025 had concluded emergency services could reach the residences via a described temporary route. The judge, looking at widths and maneuvering limitations, expressed skepticism that an ambulance could realistically pass, especially with no turning space at the end. The court also found the route being used was not the route agreed in the settlement, and that the agreed relocation of the temporary road from October 2025 onward had not materialized.  The court accepted that the developer had not fulfilled its settlement obligation and that the current situation created an unacceptable access problem, particularly for emergency services.

"This judgment confirms what we have maintained throughout: VROMI followed all proper procedures in reviewing and issuing permits for the West Vue project," stated the Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs. "Our technical staff conducted thorough reviews, and provided appropriate opportunities for public participation. The court has correctly recognized that private disputes between neighbors cannot be resolved through misuse of administrative enforcement powers."

‍

‍