~Judge rules developer cannot remove longtime tenants as luxury Indigo Bay project moves forward~
PHILIPSBURG: --- The Court of First Instance has dealt a significant setback to plans for the multimillion-dollar Setai St. Maarten resort, ruling that the developer cannot evict the operators of the Indigo Beach Restaurant despite ongoing construction of the luxury project.
In a judgment issued on June 23, 2026, the court dismissed all claims brought by VLV Developments B.V., which sought to remove restaurant tenant Omnium Group N.V. and operator Popa Management N.V. from the beachfront property at Indigo Bay.
The ruling means the popular restaurant may continue operating while construction proceeds around it, potentially complicating the timeline for the five-star resort being developed in partnership with international luxury hospitality brand The Setai.
Long-Running Lease Dispute
VLV purchased more than 72,000 square meters of leasehold land in Indigo Bay in 2022 with plans to build The Setai St. Maarten, a luxury beachfront resort. Shortly afterward, it leased the Indigo Beach Restaurant property to Omnium under a one-year agreement.
Although that lease expired in April 2023, both parties continued their business relationship. The restaurant remained open, rent continued to be paid, and VLV accepted those payments without signing a new contract.
The court ruled that under Sint Maarten civil law, this conduct automatically converted the lease into one of indefinite duration, giving the tenant important legal protections.
Developer's Arguments Rejected
VLV advanced several legal grounds for ending the tenancy.
The company argued that Omnium should not enjoy tenant protection because both sides had originally agreed that the restaurant would eventually become part of the future resort. It also claimed Omnium had improperly subleased the restaurant to Popa Management and maintained that the property was urgently needed to construct a new luxury restaurant and sales office for the resort.
The court rejected every argument.
Judge L.J. Saarloos found no evidence that Omnium had misled the developer when the original lease was signed. The court also concluded that VLV had long known Popa Management operating the restaurant and accepting rent from it, effectively consenting to the arrangement.
"The alleged unauthorized sublease cannot now be used as grounds for termination," the ruling concluded.
Resort Not Yet a Hotel
One of the case's most important findings concerned VLV's claim that the restaurant forms part of a hotel complex, exempting it from ordinary commercial tenant protections.
The judge disagreed.
While acknowledging that a luxury resort is planned, the court emphasized that no functioning resort currently exists. Because the hotel has not yet been built, the restaurant cannot legally be considered spatially connected to a hotel under Sint Maarten's Civil Code.
Without that connection, the statutory exception allowing easier termination of commercial leases does not apply.
No Urgent Need Proven
VLV also argued it urgently required the property for its own use, intending to transform the existing restaurant into a luxury dining venue with an adjoining sales office for prospective buyers.
The judge found that claim unconvincing.
Although the location may be desirable, VLV failed to demonstrate that the restaurant site was the only suitable location on its extensive Indigo Bay property for such a facility.
The court also noted that even the developer's construction plans had changed during the proceedings—from demolishing the building to renovating and expanding it—undermining the urgency of its request.
Restaurant Remains Open
As a result of the decision, Omnium and Popa Management will remain in possession of the restaurant.
The court also rejected VLV's request to remove beach equipment from surrounding land and denied its request for daily financial penalties against the restaurant operators.
Instead, VLV was ordered to pay the defendants' legal costs of Cg. 2,500.
Wider Significance
The judgment highlights the strength of commercial tenant protections in Sint Maarten, even in the face of large-scale redevelopment projects.
For developers, the ruling underscores that ambitious investment plans alone do not override existing tenancy rights. Unless legal requirements for terminating a lease are strictly satisfied, longstanding tenants may continue occupying commercial premises—even when those premises stand in the middle of a major new resort development.
The decision is likely to influence future redevelopment projects across the island, particularly where older commercial tenants occupy land earmarked for tourism expansion.
