COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) -- Sri Lanka's top court on Thursday ordered the owners of a Singapore-flagged container ship that sank near its capital to pay $1 billion in compensation to the island nation's government for causing the most severe marine environment catastrophe in the country's history.

The container ship MV X-Press Peal, which was carrying chemicals, sank off Colombo in June, 2021 after catching fire. The Supreme Court said the incident caused "unprecedented devastation to the marine environment of Sri Lanka" and harmed the country's economy, especially the lives of the fishing communities.

Judges said the disaster led to the death of 417 turtles, 48 dolphins, eight whales and a large number of fish species that washed ashore after the incident. Debris from the ship, including several tons of plastic pellets used to make plastic bags, caused severe pollution on beaches.

"This marine environmental disaster constitutes the largest recorded marine plastic spill in the world," the judgement said. "It resulted in the widespread release of toxic and hazardous substances into the marine environment, poisoning ocean waters, killing marine species, and destructing phytoplankton."

Due to the severe marine pollution, the government imposed a fishing ban for well over a year, depriving fishermen of their income and livelihood.

The incident "continues to cause destruction and harm to Sri Lanka's marine environment," said the judgement, signed by five supreme court judges.

The judgement was given against the X-Press Pearl group that included ship's registered owner, EOS Ro Pte. Limited, and other charterers. All are based in Singapore. An agent in Sri Lanka, Sea Consortium Lanka (Pvt.) Ltd., was also named.

The court said it has sufficient reasons to hold that X-Press Pearl group "should be held accountable and liable under the Polluter Pays Principle for the pollution caused by the MV X-Press Pearl vessel."

It said the owner, operators and local agent of the ship were all liable for the payment of compensation, which should be used to restore and protect the affected marine and coastal environment.

There was no immediate comment on the judgement from the owner or agent of the vessel.

The court ruling came after several parties, including environment campaigners and fisher rights groups, filed litigation seeking compensation.