M BADIUZZAMAN & 4 Ors v SALMA ISLAM & 3 Ors

[2023] SGHC 311 High Court (General Division) 30 October 2023 HC/OC 332/2022

4 cases cited Cited by 2 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	30 October 2023
Judge	Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim	Tort
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLP, Chong Yee Leong, Elias Benyamin Arun, Justin William Jeremiah, Liew Pei Jun Annette

Source: [2023] SGHC 311, High Court (General Division), decided 30 October 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Tort — Defamation — Whether aggravated damages and special damages are warranted

Practice Areas

Tort

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (5)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm Chong Yee Leong Counsel for the plaintiff

Elias Benyamin Arun Counsel for the plaintiff

Justin William Jeremiah Counsel for the plaintiff Liew Pei Jun Annette Counsel for the plaintiff

Parties (9)

Ehsanuzzaman Rajib Plaintiff

Fahim Ahmed Defendant

M Badiuzzaman Plaintiff

Najib Zaman Plaintiff

Nasreen Zaman Plaintiff

Saiful Alam Defendant

Salma Islam Defendant

Shahim Islam Defendant

Tania Zaman Plaintiff

Case Significance

M Badiuzzaman and others v Salma Islam and others [2023] SGHC 311 is a reserved judgment of Choo Han Teck J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 30 October 2023 in Originating Claim No 332 of 2022. The claimants are a family of Singaporeans originally from Bangladesh who run the family business Tania International Pte Ltd, part of the Tania Group; the first claimant M Badiuzzaman is its managing director. The claimants sued the four defendants for defamation over allegedly defamatory remarks published in media owned by Jugantor, with the judgment addressing whether aggravated damages and special damages were warranted.

Summary

A family of five Singaporean claimants who run a family business sued four defendants connected to a Bangladeshi newspaper and television outlet for defamation over statements published online and circulated in Singapore. The remaining issue addressed in the judgment was whether aggravated and special damages were warranted. The court found no malice and held that an award of aggravated damages was not justified, and declined to award special damages, being unsatisfied that reputational harm had caused the claimed financial loss.

What was M Badiuzzaman v Salma Islam [2023] SGHC 311 about?

It was a defamation claim before Choo Han Teck J brought by M Badiuzzaman and members of his family, who run Tania International Pte Ltd, against Salma Islam and three other defendants over remarks published in Jugantor-owned media, decided on 30 October 2023.

What damages issues did [2023] SGHC 311 consider?

The judgment considered whether aggravated damages and special damages were warranted in the defamation claim by the Badiuzzaman family, who alleged that the defendants published defamatory remarks in media owned by Jugantor.