GREAT BAY--On September 15, 2025, the Court of First Instance of St. Maarten delivered a ruling in the summary proceedings brought against the Country of St. Maarten by Avyanna Clean Up and Construction N.V., the company whose waste collection contract had been terminated by Minister of VROMI Patrice Gumbs.
The termination was based on the company’s consistent failure to comply with the contract, specifically, waste was not being collected regularly. As a result, the Minister of VROMI decided to terminate the agreement and award the assignment to one of the next contractors from the original tender process.
Avyanna argued that negative public statements by the Minister repeatedly placed the company in a negative light, harming its business reputation and chances of obtaining new contracts. The company further claimed that the termination, coming after four years of service, was disproportionate given that the contract would have expired in a few months.
The Country countered that Avyanna had repeatedly failed to meet its obligations. According to the government, these were not isolated problems but structural failures with serious consequences for public health and the island’s livability. Avyanna was given multiple opportunities to correct deficiencies through notifications and warnings, but shortcomings persisted, including more than eight separate incidents within a ten-day period in July 2025. This, the Country argued, amounted to default and justified termination under the contract and the law.
The former waste collector maintained that there were no grounds for termination and demanded that the contract be honored, including reinstatement as the waste collector for the Country of St. Maarten. The company also alleged conflicts of interest and claimed the assignment had not been awarded to the correct next contractor.
“This dispute goes to the heart of public service in St. Maarten: protecting public health and the living environment through timely and reliable waste collection. The Country has a public duty in this respect. Structural failure to deliver carries real health risks and disrupts society. The government has a duty of care. Terminating a contract that is consistently not honored is therefore not only a right but also an obligation,” said attorney Gerald Simmons-de Jong on behalf of the Country of St. Maarten.
The judge held that, in the provisional opinion of the Court, the termination by the Country on August 12, 2025, was based on the contract and the Terms of Reference and was therefore not unlawful.
“In short, this dispute concerns whether the contractor was in default. The relevant provisions of the contract are included in section 2.2 of this ruling. The contract stipulates that the Country, as client, may issue ‘notifications’ to the contractor. These notifications can address late or poorly executed services. After three notifications, a warning follows. Upon three warnings, the client is entitled to terminate the contract: ‘three strikes is out,’” the Court explained.
The Court also addressed the claim that negotiations had begun with the successor company before the termination of the contract. The Court found nothing improper in this, stating that the Country had to ensure continuity in waste collection without interruption.
The contractor further argued that the Country failed to comply with the Terms of Reference after termination, since the “next in line winning bidder” should have been awarded the contract. Avyanna also claimed that when the government appointed All Waste in Place to assume responsibility for waste collection, the company profited from the alleged unlawful termination, which constituted an unlawful act. By stepping in to perform the service, All Waste allegedly harmed Avyanna’s interests and worsened the consequences of the termination.
The Court noted that while Meadowlands was indeed next in line, the company had already been awarded three parcels and had indicated a lack of capacity to take on additional work. Moreover, Meadowlands had also received several notifications itself. Given these factors, the Court found it reasonable that the Country awarded the contract to All Waste in Place, the next available bidder.
Finally, the Court dismissed the allegation of conflict of interest, namely that the current Chief of Cabinet at VROMI was commercially connected to All Waste. The Court noted that the company had already submitted a valid bid in 2020, which legitimately qualified it to take over the contract.
https://tribune-site.webflow.io//articles/govt-wins-court-case-brought-by-terminated-garbage-collector
