The insurers' legal team representing parties involved in the MV X-Press Pearl compensation dispute arrived in Sri Lanka on 29 September and held discussions with several senior Government officials, including representatives of the Treasury and the Attorney General’s (AG) Department.
Neither the Central Environmental Authority (CEA) nor the Marine Environment Protection Authority (MEPA) confirmed the arrival of the legal team in Sri Lanka. However, The Daily Morning learns that the team, which is involved in proceedings initiated by the Singapore Government, held discussions with local parties on the implementation of and compliance with the final Supreme Court (SC) judgement. The discussions also covered several other matters relating to the X-Press Pearl compensation process.
Meanwhile, environmental lawyer and Centre for Environmental Justice (a petitioner in the SC case) Director Dr Ravindranath Dabare questioned whether the parties could negotiate the manner in which a SC judgement should be implemented when the Court has already prescribed the mode of compliance. Dr Dabare said that the judgement clearly sets out how it should be implemented and the manner in which the parties are required to comply. He argued that neither the Government, the respondents nor parties representing X-Press Pearl could negotiate the mode of compliance with the judgement, warning that doing so could amount to contempt of Court and undermine the authority of the Judiciary. “If the mode of executing the judgement or the mode of compliance with the judgement can be discussed between the parties, it would be a joke or a mockery of the Judiciary,” Dr Dabare said.
The latest visit comes amid growing sensitivity surrounding the X-Press Pearl compensation dispute and concerns previously raised by the claimants over the safety of members of their delegation travelling to Sri Lanka. The International law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, United Kingdom, representing the claimants, wrote to the Acting Director General of the Ocean Affairs, Environment and Climate Change Division of the Foreign Affairs Ministry on 10 September, seeking assurances for the “safe passage” of members of the delegation attending an in-person meeting scheduled for 22 and 23 September. The lawyers said that some members of the delegation would attend the meeting physically, while others would participate by video link. They rejected a proposal by the Sri Lankan Government for the meeting to be conducted entirely virtually. The claimants' lawyers said that their concerns arose from the possibility that members of the delegation could face enforcement measures in Sri Lanka because of their association with the claimants. The Government had informed them in correspondence dated 7 September that it is not aware of any complaint, enforcement measure or court order against members of the proposed delegation. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, however, rejected the Government's characterisation of the concerns as “pure conjecture”. The lawyers referred to the SC judgement of 24 July of 2025 arising from the X-Press Pearl disaster, which they said recorded serious allegations of bribery and corruption concerning the compensation claim. These included allegations relating to a payment of approximately US $ 250 million, the decision to pursue the claim before the Singapore International Commercial Court and alleged delays in commencing proceedings. According to the lawyers, the SC described the allegations as “very serious” and directed the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption (CIABOC) to investigate them. The Court also directed the CIABOC to call for and consider investigations already conducted by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan requested a copy of the CID investigation report, arguing that the Government could not credibly claim to be unaware of the allegations when investigative material had itself been placed before the SC. The lawyers also referred to reported fresh CIABOC complaints concerning the MEPA, the AG’s Department and other State institutions, as well as reports of alleged bribery complaints linked to the SC proceedings and the enforcement of the judgement. They argued that these developments showed that the allegations surrounding the X-Press Pearl compensation claim remain active and could not be dismissed as hypothetical.
The dispute also comes as Singapore pursues proceedings against Sri Lanka under the Sri Lanka–Singapore Free Trade Agreement.
The latest developments have brought renewed focus on how the SC judgement is being implemented, the handling of the compensation claim and the continuing investigations and allegations surrounding the X-Press Pearl disaster.
They also place the Government in a delicate position as it deals simultaneously with the implementation of the SC judgement, the compensation dispute, the fresh examination of scientific evidence and continuing corruption-related allegations.