Confusion on the Beach: Two Court rulings illustrate why non-adherence to clear permit rules results in chaos for Govt

SIMPSONBAY--Two rulings issued on December 18 and December 19, 2025, address separate but related disputes on the same stretch of Simpson Bay Beach. One concerns sound, dancing, and the limits of Babacool’s operational license. The other concerns parking access and who has the right to direct guests into the parking area. Turns out, Karakter has that right according to the court.

Read together, the decisions highlight broader concerns about beach-side permitting: how approvals are evaluated, how permits are granted for one thing when that "one thing" is not permitted in an operational license, how building permits are granted to establishments with no parking, and other basic operational requirements, such as lawful access which should be in place before permissions are granted or expanded. Parking provision is a requirement for such establishments obtaining a building permit. How that was overlooked by VROMI in the past, or ignored, have directly led to the current situation.

Case one: the court leaves TEATT’s “no” in place

In the first matter, the Court of First Instance of St. Maarten on December 18, 2025, rejected Babacool’s request for interim relief against the Ministry of Tourism, Economic Affairs, Transport and Telecommunication (TEATT). The applicant was Marcelle and Co B.V., operating as Babacool, seeking a provisional measure to suspend a ministerial decision dated December 4, 2025. The proprietors of Babacool are related to the proprietors of District 721 who alsi fights with the Ministry of TEATT often. Specifically in the case against TEATT Ms. V Mas and Mr. M. di Palma was mentioned in the verdict

The underlying timeline is straightforward, and the court was precise about it:

• On March 21, 2025, Babacool applied to the TEATT Minister for an operational license for a coffeehouse and restaurant, and also requested authorization for live music, entertainment shows or other performances, and dancing.
• On July 18, 2025, the Minister issued an operational license allowing the coffeehouse and restaurant to operate. That license permitted background music only, capped at a maximum sound level of 60dB. The ruling notes Babacool did not file an objection or appeal against the July 18 decision.
• On December 4, 2025, the Minister issued a new decision rejecting Babacool’s request for permission to host live music and entertainment, including dancing.
• On December 9, 2025, Babacool filed an appeal against the December 4 refusal.
• On December 11, 2025, Babacool sought a provisional measure under Article 85 of the Administrative Jurisdiction Ordinance (Lar), asking the court to suspend the refusal until the main appeal is decided and to order the Minister to temporarily grant the requested permissions for live entertainment and dancing.

Babacool argued that the refusal constrained business operations, caused financial harm, and put it at a disadvantage compared with competitors. A hearing was held on December 17, 2025, with Babacool representatives and TEATT officials present. The court stressed that an interim ruling is provisional and does not bind the court in the main proceedings, then focused on urgency and disproportional harm.

The judge found Babacool had not shown, or not shown sufficiently, that it faced harm so disproportionate that it could not wait for the main appeal. The court described the claimed harm as primarily financial, and stated it was not demonstrated that the refusal created a financial emergency or imminent bankruptcy. The ruling also underscored that Babacool has been operating since July 2025 under the restaurant and coffeehouse license, with background music up to 60dB, and could still generate income through normal operations.

One point in the decision matters for the public debate on “special permissions.” The court noted that Babacool can apply for permits for events involving amplified sound and dancing on an incidental basis, and that such permits had already been granted for a number of dates in December 2025 and for the upcoming year-end celebration. Against that background, the court found it was not plausible that the lack of permanent authorization for live entertainment would produce disproportionate financial consequences requiring urgent interim relief.

The court denied the request for a provisional measure, made no order for costs, and noted that no higher appeal is possible against this interim decision. The decision was issued by Judge B. Martinez-Hammer and delivered publicly on December 18, 2025. The Minister’s December 4 refusal remains in effect for now, while Babacool’s main appeal filed December 9, 2025, remains pending.

Case two: the parking lot behind both businesses belongs to Karakter

The next day, December 19, 2025, the Court of First Instance issued a summary proceedings judgment in case SXM202501241-KG 125/2025, concluding that Karakter N.V. is entitled to use the parcel behind both Karakter and Babacool that functions as a parking lot.

The judgment describes a plot accessible through a gate from the public road, used as parking, with both parties claiming their customers should be able to use it. The court concluded that, on an interim basis, Karakter is entitled to it.

Key facts recorded by the court include:

• Karakter has operated a bar and restaurant on Simpson Bay Beach since 2008 and entered a lease arrangement with White Sands N.V., connected to parcels in the area.
• The court referenced an earlier decision from April 17, 2018, which found Karakter’s lease relationship fell under tenant protection rules, meaning it could not be validly ended without prior permission from the rent commission. The court noted such permission was not requested, and that Karakter continued paying rent.
• Babacool operates a beach restaurant on the sand and has a lease agreement with Patula N.V. for several parcels, identified as cadastral numbers 026/1970, 027/1970, 034/1970, and 035/1970.
• A building permit was granted to Babacool on May 8, 2024, for construction of the beach restaurant on those parcels. The ruling states those parcels do not have direct access to the public road.
• Babacool obtained its operational license on July 29, 2025, and opened on August 24, 2025.
• On September 19, 2025, Karakter filed a complaint with TEATT about Babacool’s use of the parking lot, including allegations that Babacool and its staff were sending away Karakter’s guests and employees.
• The court noted a fire on October 11, 2025, that damaged part of Karakter and led it to postpone reopening until the first half of December 2025.

The court found the disputed parking lot forms part of cadastral parcel SXM SB 095/1981, based on cadastral maps submitted by both parties. The judge discussed the change in long lease rights tied to White Sands, noting White Sands’ long lease had ended and no new long lease right would be granted. Still, the court stated that, in its preliminary view, the Country as owner would be obliged to continue the lease relationship with Karakter. At the hearing, Karakter stated that the Minister of VROMI confirmed on December 3, 2025, that Karakter remained the tenant of the parking lot and retained the right to use it.

Babacool presented a WhatsApp message suggesting the parking area should be shared, but the court was not persuaded, noting among other points that White Sands was no longer the landlord and that such arrangements should not be made without consultation with the tenant.

The court orders were immediate:

• Babacool must stop using the parking facility on parcel SXM SB 095/1981 and stop directing third parties to park there.
• Babacool must remove its property from the parking facility and keep it removed.
• Within 48 hours, Babacool must publish a message on its social media stating that the parking facilities fall under Karakter’s exclusive right, that Babacool guests must park outside the gate, and that Karakter’s parking instructions must be followed. The message must be repeated weekly on Mondays for two months.
• A penalty payment was imposed of USD 2,000 per violation, plus USD 1,000 per day for as long as a violation continues, capped at USD 50,000.

On the red “Private Property” sign at the entrance, the court rejected the claim to compel Babacool to replace that specific sign or reimburse its cost, because Babacool denied removing it and the issue was unsuitable for evidence-taking in this procedure. The ruling adds that Babacool must tolerate Karakter placing such a sign again.

The court rejected Babacool’s counterclaim seeking an order that Karakter withdraw its September 19, 2025, complaint to TEATT, stating Babacool did not make it plausible the complaint was unlawful, and noting Babacool acknowledged that complaints had been filed by other persons as well. The court also rejected Babacool’s request to stop Karakter’s measures limiting Babacool’s use of the parking lot, stating that as tenant, Karakter is entitled to determine who may use it.

Costs were awarded against Babacool: Cg 2,227.50 plus post-judgment costs set at Cg 250, and an additional Cg 400 if unpaid within the period set out in the ruling. Babacool must also pay Cg 1,000 in costs for the counterclaim. Legal interest becomes due from January 2, 2026, if unpaid. The judgment was declared enforceable immediately, even if an appeal is filed.

How beach operations turned into a wider dispute

These cases drew attention because they deal with basic operating issues that can quickly trigger conflict when the rules are not clear or not adhered to. On a busy beach strip, parking affects foot traffic flow, safety, access, and how customers reach a business. Entertainment approvals matter too, because they affect noise, crowd control, and whether a place functions as a quiet restaurant or an events venue.

In that setting, one business may see complaints or enforcement as an attempt to disrupt operations. The other may see the same situation as protecting long-held rights and preventing interference with its guests. Several people in the area reportedly expressed frustration, not only about the dispute, but about the sense that it is not always clear, or consistently applied, who has permission to do what.

The December 19 judgment records that the parcels Babacool leases do not have direct access to the public road, and the court ruled that the disputed parking area falls under Karakter’s right to use it. That leads to a simple question: how was a business approved to operate in that location without a clear, lawful parking and access arrangement of its own, especially when parking is central to day-to-day operations and public safety?

The December 18 ruling also highlights the entertainment issue. The court recorded that Babacool’s operational license allows background music up to 60dB, while permanent permission for live music, shows, performances, and dancing was refused on December 4, 2025, pending the main appeal. Yet the court also noted that one-off permits had already been granted for several dates in December 2025 and for the year-end celebration.

That combination raises an obvious concern: when permanent permission is refused, what standard is being used to approve repeated one-off events that can create similar conditions on busy nights? When do “incidental” permits start functioning like a substitute for a full authorization?

Finally, enforcement matters. TEATT inspectors reportedly visited the establishment earlier and issued warnings about events, stating there was no permission to host such live events. If that is correct, what changed after those warnings, and who approved year-end live events anyway, particularly in an area where a nearby operator is said to already hold the relevant permissions and the rights tied to parking?

‍