The Judge heard the summary proceedings that company Arspa initiated against Refineria di Aruba (RDA). At a given moment, the Judge sent the parties to meet, and if they cannot reach an agreement, a verdict will be handed down.
It was understood that Arspa sued the refinery RDA for 14 Million florins for work done at the refinery that remained unpaid. The Judge attempted to mediate to see if a solution could be reached. Eventually, the Judge postponed the case and ordered the parties to sit at the table. By September 30, 2026, the Judge must be notified whether a concrete agreement has been reached. If there is no agreement, the Judge will set a date for the ruling.
Present in the courtroom were Mr. Arends (director) and Mr. Helder (manager of Arspa). On RDA’s side, Mr. Hoevertsz, president of the Board of Supervisory Directors, was present. Also present was engineer Baletine from HCCS, who was evaluating the work Arspa was performing at the refinery. Attorney Mr. Braam represented Arspa, while attorneys Mr. Gomez and Mr. Cofee represented RDA.
ARSPA WANTS PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE
Attorney Mr. Braam explained to the Judge that Arspa executed work on 2 tanks and on the refinery’s pier, but RDA did not pay for all of this work. The total amount in dispute reaches millions of florins. The attorney pointed out that in April 2026, RDA prohibited Arspa from entering the refinery grounds, despite RDA not having fulfilled its payments.
There were conversations where at one point RDA wanted Arspa to work solely on the 2 tanks—calculated at 8.4 Million florins—and no longer work on the pier. The attorney told the Judge that the tanks were completed, but RDA did not make the payment. In the attorney’s opinion, there are also prior works that were not paid, totaling 14 Million florins.
RDA QUESTIONS ARSPA
Attorney Mr. Gomez questioned the 14 Million florin claim. He told the Judge that there is no satisfactory explanation of what exactly needs to be paid and added that he does not believe there is an urgent reason justifying summary proceedings. He noted that the amounts mentioned by Arspa do not add up and that it has not been justified how much of the work is actually completed and how much is still pending.
The attorney explained that there are 6 projects forming part of the works, some of which haven’t even started. Mr. Gomez noted that RDA’s experts have reports questioning the quality of several jobs, indicating they do not meet requirements and that Arspa failed to deliver what was agreed upon. Because of this, RDA decided to halt the work.
Furthermore, the attorney stated that Arspa failed to meet the stipulated delivery date of March 2026 and asked to extend the period until October 2026. He noted that delays cannot occur without both parties’ consent. Mr. Gomez believes that Arspa’s claim cannot be addressed in summary proceedings, but rather in a deeper legal procedure where experts can determine actual costs. He emphasized that RDA paid regularly and that Arspa failed to deliver the work. RDA wanted a practical solution, but Arspa did not cooperate; therefore, RDA has the right to withhold payment.
JUDGE MEDIATED TO TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION
The Judge questioned both parties to understand what they want and how they envision continuing to work together. Mr. Gomez explained that the initial plan was to pause the summary proceedings and meet to reach new agreements, but that failed because Arspa did not want to continue meeting. The work must be done, especially on the pier where fuel-delivering ships need to dock.
During the interaction in court, Mr. Hoevertsz consulted with Mr. Gomez, who later expressed that RDA does not have much trust in Arspa. On the other hand, Mr. Braam indicated that Arspa is willing to keep working.
When the Judge tried to speak with engineer Baletine, RDA objected because Baletine was invited by Arspa. Mr. Gomez said RDA wanted an independent expert, but Arspa did not cooperate.
The Judge asked Arspa if they would accept having another expert evaluate the work to resolve the impasse. Mr. Braam responded that if RDA is willing to pay what it owes, they can discuss finding a new expert. During this exchange, engineer Baletine declared that if RDA lacks confidence in him, he is willing to step aside. He clarified that he worked very well with RDA’s previous expert, but that expert is no longer there as he was apparently dismissed.
Attorney Mr. Braam added that Arspa’s workers are from Trinidad, but since RDA stopped the work, they were sent back. If RDA wants work to continue, they will need to be brought back, causing a delay of about a month.
JUDGE POSTPONED THE CASE
Considering the parties’ attitudes, the Judge remarked that it is advisable for them to sit down and reach a concrete agreement regarding an independent expert. This expert would evaluate the work already executed by Arspa and plan the remaining tasks.
At RDA’s request, the Judge stipulated that by September 30, 2026, he must receive notification from the parties on whether an agreement was reached. If there is no concrete agreement by that date, the Judge will set a date to issue a ruling.