Mullet Bay Is Public, But How Does the Public Legally Get There?

GREAT BAY--The Court confirmed that Mullet Bay Beach is public, but the ruling does not appear to establish a specific public right of way across Sun Resorts' privately owned land behind the beach, leaving a potentially important question over land-based access.

Whether Sun Resorts can lawfully close the existing access to Mullet Bay would likely depend on legal questions that this verdict did not decide, including whether an existing access route is a public road, whether Government owns any access parcel, whether there is a registered easement or right of way, and whether long public use has created any separate legal rights or obligations.

That is the nuance now emerging from the July 7 judgment in the long-running Mullet Bay property dispute. Although realistically, it is hard to imagine Sun Resorts doing anything that prevents the public from accessing the beach. This would assuredly cause public upheaval that Sun Resorts would probably want to avoid on their property. But in strictly legal terms, much needs to be clarified.  

By law the public must have access to their beach. But said access can be impacted by what Sub Resorts puts in place around its property. This would more than likely require serious negotiations between the government and Sun Resorts. The Court of First Instance was clear on the central ownership question. Mullet Bay Beach itself did not become the private property of Sun Resorts through the historic 1852 land transfer relied on in the case. The judgment treated the beach as public and rejected Sun Resorts' claim to ownership of it.

At the same time, the Court also recognized Sun Resorts' ownership of land behind the public beach and ruled that Government had acted unlawfully by treating parts of that private property as though it were Government land. The question is therefore no longer only who owns the sand. The next question is how the public legally reaches that sand.

The judgment reviewed does not appear to declare a general public right to cross Sun Resorts' private property. It does not identify a specific public access corridor. It does not establish a right of way across all adjoining private land, nor does it order Sun Resorts to maintain the current routes used by beachgoers.

That does not automatically mean Sun Resorts can close the area tomorrow and force residents to reach Mullet Bay by boat or jet ski. It means the access issue may have to be answered by a different set of legal facts.

For example, if the road currently used to enter Mullet Bay is legally a public road, Sun Resorts may not be able to simply treat it as private property and close it. If Government owns a strip of land leading to the beach, that could provide a lawful public access route. If there is a registered easement or right of passage, that could also protect access.

Another question is whether decades of continuous public use of a particular access route have created any legal consequences. That would require a closer examination of St. Maarten property law, cadastral records, title deeds and the history of the route itself. None of those questions appears to have been finally decided in the July 7 judgment.

Government went into the case publicly describing its position in terms of protecting both the public nature of the beach and public access. In its April statement, Government stressed that Mullet Bay had historically remained accessible and had been managed as a public beach. The Court, however, had to decide the claims actually before it.

Its ruling drew a legal boundary between the beach and the private property behind it. That is an important victory for the public on beach ownership, but it should not automatically be interpreted as a complete legal ruling on every route people currently use to reach the beach.

In fact, the other part of the verdict makes the access question even more relevant. The Court found that Government unlawfully allowed third parties to use parts of Sun Resorts' land and ordered Government to stop presenting itself as owner of the affected private property. That finding reinforces Sun Resorts' property rights over the land behind the beach.

So there are now two legally protected interests sitting next to each other.

1. The public has a public beach.

2. Sun Resorts has private land behind it.

The missing piece is the legal bridge between the two.

This is where Government may need to be precise in its public communication. Saying “Mullet Bay Beach remains public” is correct. Saying the ruling guarantees unrestricted land access through Sun Resorts' property may go further than the judgment itself.

In October 2024, MP Darryl York called for a comprehensive Beach Ordinance under the Ministries of VROMI and TEATT that would specifically ensure public beach access through a minimum three-meter-wide accessible walkway. That provision now takes on added significance following the Mullet Bay court ruling, which confirmed that the beach is public but appears not to establish a specific public right of way across Sun Resorts' privately owned land behind it.

York's proposal directly contemplated the access question by seeking to legally guarantee a defined, accessible route to public beaches, while also setting limits on building heights and density near the coast and requiring environmental impact assessments for coastal development.

The proposal formed part of York's broader draft motion, “Mullet Bay and Coastal Protection,” aimed at strengthening protection of St. Maarten's remaining coastal and ecological areas. The motion urged Government to implement enforceable coastal management measures, zone Mullet Bay as a protected area, formalize Mullet Pond as a National Park and preserve the remaining ponds at Welgelegen, Red Pond, Great Salt Pond and Fresh Pond.

In hindsight, the proposed minimum three-meter-wide public beach access walkway stands out as particularly relevant, as the recent Court judgment has sharpened the distinction between a public beach and privately owned land behind it.

‍

‍