M Badiuzzaman and others v Salma Islam and others

The claimants in Originating Claim No 332 of 2022 were a family originally from Bangladesh, now Singaporeans, behind Tania International Pte Ltd, part of the informally named Tania Group. M Badiuzzaman was its managing director; the other claimants were his wife Nasreen Zaman and their three adult children.

They sued four defendants connected with Jugantor, a Bengali daily in Bangladesh also circulated in Singapore, and with Jamuna Television, a related entity running the Jamuna TV YouTube channel: the publisher, the editor, the CEO and chief news editor, and the managing director. The claim concerned three publications: a Jugantor web article of around 11 September 2020, a YouTube video of 18 December 2020, and a Jugantor article of 14 January 2021. The claimants said these meant, among other things, that they had moved illegal assets to Singapore, laundered money, and in Mr Badiuzzaman's case evaded the authorities, evaded tax and acted corruptly.

The defendants were personally served in Bangladesh but did not enter appearance. The claimants sought general, aggravated and special damages, the last being said to arise from Bank of Singapore cancelling a mortgage facility of an entity owned by Mr Badiuzzaman, and a permanent injunction.

1. Whether the three publications referred to the claimants, were defamatory, and were published.
2. Whether the defence of justification raised in the first defendant's response letter had any basis.
3. What general damages should be awarded to each claimant.
4. Whether aggravated damages and special damages were warranted.

The judge was satisfied that the publications named the relevant claimants, and accepted their evidence that they were named. Reading the English translation, the common theme was that the family had made money unlawfully and was under investigation, which, unless justified, was defamatory. The material was freely accessible online, and two witnesses from the Bangladeshi community testified that they and others had seen it.

The first defendant had replied to a letter of demand that the articles were follow-up reports of allegations by the Anti-Corruption Commission. There was no evidence supporting that. The only Commission letter in evidence, dated 1 February 2021 and produced by Mr Badiuzzaman, alleged only "amassing wealth beyond known sources", was substantially different from the publications, and post-dated them.

On general damages, the judge accepted that Mr Badiuzzaman had some prominence in the Bangladeshi community in Singapore and was the main target, defamed in all three publications. Mrs Zaman was defamed in two and held no key business role, warranting a substantial reduction from her husband's award, but she remained a figure of some prominence. The children, defamed only in the January 2021 article, had rightly sought less.

Applying the factors in Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Chan Cheng Wah Bernad [2013] 4 SLR 629, the judge refused aggravated damages. There was no repetition, no pressure to deter the suit and no persecution by other means; the defendants largely ignored the claimants. Letters of demand were sent only in 2022 and no further material was published meanwhile, which indicated no malice. Failure to apologise and withdraw was not enough. Special damages, citing Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia [2014] 1 SLR 639, must flow from reputational loss. The bank gave no reasons for cancelling the facility, so linking it to the defamation would be pure speculation, and the cancellation came almost a year after the last publication.

Choo Han Teck J allowed the claim in part. Defamation was made out on all three publications. General damages were awarded: Mr Badiuzzaman $30,000 against the first and second defendants and $20,000 against the third and fourth defendants; Mrs Zaman $20,000 against the first and second defendants; and the third to fifth claimants $10,000 each against the first and second defendants. Aggravated and special damages were refused. Costs were to be heard later.