arising from the unreasonably prolonged detention and/or wrongful conversion of the Defendant’s Vessel from 11 April 2018 until 19 April 2018 as determined by the court. [12] It is to be noted that the Plaintiff’s action in rem is brought under section 24 (b) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1949 which grants this admiralty court the same jurisdiction and authority in relation to matters of admiralty as it had by the High Court of Justice in England under the 8 United Kingdom Supreme Court Act 1981 (Supreme Court Act). The Plaintiff’s claim for damages as a result of the Defendant’s breach of contract and / or in tort in connection with the carriage of the Cargo on board the Vessel falls within section 20 (2) (g) and (h) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (Supreme Court Act). While the Plaintiff’s action in rem is well within the jurisdiction of this admiralty court as stipulated in section 20 (2) (g) and (h) read with section 21 (4) of the Supreme Court Act, this court is of the view the Defendant’s claim for damages and expenses for excessive security and prolonged detention does not fall within section 20 of the same. [13] In this respect reference is made to The Owners of the Ship or Vessel "Siti Ayu" and "Melati Jaya" v. Sarawak Oil Palm Sdn Bhd & Anor [2006] 1 MLJ 630; [2006] 1 CLJ 126 where the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of the High Court that the defendant’s counterclaim for damages for the wrongful arrest and detention of the defendant’s tugboats did not fall within any of the provisions set out in section 20 of the Supreme Court Act. [14] In the event this court erred on the issue of jurisdiction, the defendant’s claim for damages ought to be ventilated and resolved by 9 arbitration in Hong Kong as the parties has agreed, via clause 22 of the Fixture Note, for disputes arising thereof to be resolved by arbitration. [15] In this respect reference is made to the Singapore case of The Evmar [1989] 2 MLJ 460; [1989] 1 LNS 39 cited by the Defendant to support its application for the security to be moderated. In that case the plaintiff appeal against the decision of the deputy registrar who, among others, ordered for the setting aside of the warrant of arrest issued against the defendant’s ship The Evmar, the release of the same, that the proceedings be stayed on the ground that the dispute to which it relates to is one which the parties have agreed to refer to arbitration in London and that the plaintiff to pay the defendants damages for the wrongful arrest and detention of the ship. [16] The High Court refused to set aside the warrant of arrest as there was nothing wrong in the issuance and execution of the said warrant of arrest. The court further ordered for the ship to be released from arrest as there was no evidence to show that if the plaintiffs should obtain an arbitration award against the defendants, the defendants would be unlikely to satisfy it. It was also ordered that the letter of undertaking given to the plaintiffs as an alternative security be returned to the 10 defendant. With regard to the issue of damages for wrongful arrest of the ship, the court held as follows – In the light of what I said above that there are no grounds to set aside the warrant of arrest, I do not think the question of damages for wrongful arrest arises at this time. Whether any damages are due eventually to the defendants on account of that arrest would have to await the outcome of the substantive claim that is being referred to arbitration. It is within the power of an arbitrator to award damages for wrongful arrest: see Lord Denning in Astro Vencedor SA v Mabanaft [1971] 2 QB 588 at p 595. To succeed in a claim for damages for wrongful arrest, it is quite clear that the defendants must show that there were mala fides or malicious negligence on the part of the plaintiffs. see The Evangelismos