Saroj Pathirana  – Fellow, Pulitzer Centre’s Ocean Reporting Network (ORN)

X-Press Feeders, the operators of the ill-fated vessel X-Press Pearl, says the company is “extremely disappointed” and is reviewing the landmark ruling by the Sri Lanka Supreme Court on the X-Press Pearl disaster.

On 24 July, Sri Lanka’s apex court ordered the “X-Press Pearl Club” to pay initial compensation of $1 billion for the 2021 disaster.

As journalist Leana Hosea described for a BBC documentary, “when the X-Press Pearl cargo ship burned and went down it released a toxic cocktail into the sea” (https://x.com/leanahosea/status/1949167027291132345).

She is the co-founder of UK-based Watershed Investigations and my partner for this investigation sponsored by the Pulitzer Centre’s Ocean Reporting Network (ORN).

Sri Lanka’s apex court also appointed a special judicial commission headed by a retired Supreme Court judge to oversee further compensation payments.

When asked about the response, Andrew Leahy, Director for South East Asia at MTI Pte Ltd, based in Singapore, said: “X-Press Feeders, the former operator of the container ship X-Press Pearl, is extremely disappointed with the judgment from the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka arising from the casualty of the X-Press Pearl, which ordered that non-state parties involved in the casualty make an initial payment of $1bn within a year.”

MTI Pte Ltd is the PR agent for X-Press Feeders.

He further said: “We are reviewing the substantial 361-page ruling with our legal advisors and insurers and liaising with other relevant stakeholders, including the International Group of Protection and Indemnity Clubs, to best assess our next course of action.

“In respect of the ongoing legal action related to this incident, we will not comment further at this time.”

Following the judgment, some analysts have been arguing that it would be difficult to enforce the ruling as the X-Press Pearl company has since been dissolved.

Dr Dan Malika Gunasekara, an expert on Admiralty, Maritime and Shipping Law, dismissed the argument as hearsay, stating it is customary for the shipping industry to establish companies for each individual ship.

It is natural that the company has been dissolved if the vessel no longer exists.

Speaking with the “Sandeshaya by Saroj” YouTube channel, Dr Gunasekara pointed out that the court has made the owner, the Master, the operator, and the local agent of the vessel responsible to pay the compensation.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCqfvu0ecNQ)

“The four parties were jointly and separately made liable,” he explained.

“Which means that they jointly pay together, or if some parties are not willing to furnish this, then it can be obtained from any of the parties involved.”

In fact, legal representatives of these parties made lengthy arguments against the court’s jurisdiction and the accusations. The shipowners, for their part, accused the Sri Lankan state of not doing enough to avert the disaster.

“All these parties were represented, in the court, by their representative lawyers, so there is no issue that the case was heard without the respondents,” says Dr Gunasekara.

If the parties refuse to pay, he said, then it would amount to contempt of court — of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also, for the first time, found the country’s Attorney General to have violated the fundamental rights of its citizens by not proceeding to file a lawsuit in Sri Lanka and by its “unreasonable, irrational and arbitrary decision” to file a lawsuit in Singapore.

Dr Gunasekara was among three legal experts appointed to look into the matter by the Marine Environmental Protection Authority (MEPA) before the lawsuit was filed.

The committee recommended filing the case in the Sri Lankan High Court, but the then Attorney General, Sanjay Rajaratnam, decided to bring it to Singapore. The Cabinet of Ministers, led by President Ranil Wickremesinghe, approved the AG’s recommendation.

The then Minister of Justice, Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, told me that two members of the panel – Chandaka Jayasundara, PC, and Ronald Perera, PC – later changed their recommendation and agreed with the AG’s decision. But Dr Gunasekara says, as far as he was aware, at least one other member of the committee stood firm with their original recommendation.

Saroj Pathirana  – Fellow, Pulitzer Centre’s Ocean Reporting Network (ORN)