A sea swimmer who was acquitted of breaching Covid rules after joining others for a dip at Laxey has had much of his multi-million pound damages claim struck out.

Ian Kirk had originally claimed damages of no less than £33m but that was subsequently reduced to £3m.

His case included some 27 claims ranging from alleged unlawful arrest and false imprisonment to human rights violations including coercion, torture and degrading treatment, as well as perjury and defamation.

Deemster Andrew Corlett has now ruled that all but a handful of the claims will be struck out - further reducing his chances of being awarded damages - finding they amounted to an abuse of process.

Those that remain concern allegations of post-acquittal harassment, violation of medical privacy and unauthorised medical action and vicarious liability by the Chief Constable and Attorney General’s Chambers.

The Deemster concluded: ‘Where this case goes next is a matter of some conjecture.

‘[Mr Kirk] is left with, in my view anyway, two minor parts of his claim, that is the medical privacy issue and the harassment issue.

‘Quite how these will give rise to very substantial claims for damages, I must say escapes me at the moment, but he must be entitled I think to continue with those claims ‘

Police attended Laxey beach on March 24, 2021, after receiving reports of between 15 and 20 people swimming in the sea together.

Officers told several of the swimmers, including self-employed wellness coach Mr Kirk, to go home.

But he later posted a video on social media saying he would return to the beach the following day to practise cold water therapy.

Police bodycam footage from March 25 showed him entering the water alone, before others followed at a distance.

Following a trial, Mr Kirk, of Pinfold Hill, Laxey, was acquitted of breaching Covid regulations with the High Bailiff saying she was not satisfied that the events constituted a gathering.

She said the arrest had been justified and Mr Kirk’s acquittal should not be taken as a criticism of the bringing of the complaint or the way it had been prosecuted.

In his civil claim, Mr Kirk said he was never given an official warning or stopped from going into the sea, and after his arrest was prevented from getting dry and getting into warm clothing.

He claimed he was made, ‘under complete duress,’ to wear a mask before he was allowed into the police station.

The High Bailiff had said she was not satisfied Mt Kirk had been given a warning.

But she made no criticism of the arrest, saying that once away from the promenade and other people present, his handcuffs were removed and he was able to put on his towelling robe and offered a foil blanket, which he allegedly refused.

Mr Kirk represented himself at his trial and is a litigant in person for his civil court claim.

In a judgment, Deemster Corlett struck out all allegations that sought to undermine or challenge the High Bailiff’s findings - these being the claims relating to the arrest, the officers’ conduct at the beach and the warning.

Other claims were struck out for being out of time.

The Deemster said proceedings related to March 25, 2021, were begun some two years out of time, the claim alleging violation of human rights was at least one year of date, and the defamation claim was out of time by one, probably two years.

He also struck out the claim of misfeasance, reiterating the arrest was justified.

Deemster Corlett said: ‘I am satisfied that very many paragraphs of the statement of case must be struck out. In my view there is no reasonable ground for bringing many of these claims.’

But he said there were some matters where there was some basis for Mr Kirk’s claims.

The first one is his claim that he had been harassed by the police after his acquittal, alleging he has been subjected to random, unjustified stops by the police when travelling to and from the UK.

Deemster Corlett said: ‘The conduct is alleged to have occurred on at least two occasions and certainly it is quite possible for a court to conclude that the actions of the police caused alarm or distress.’

He said he could not justify striking out claims that Mr Kirk was forced to put on a face mask and forced to disclose sensitive personal medical data in breach of data protection.

The Deemster said the claims that either the Attorney General or the Chief Constable are vicariously liable also survive as they are not separate causes of action.